J&K Bank Falls Within Definition of 'Industry'; Employees Are 'Workmen' Under Industrial Disputes Act: High Court
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that the Jammu and Kashmir Bank falls within the definition of "industry" under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and its employees working in non-managerial or non-supervisory capacity qualify as "workmen" under Section 2(s) of the Act.
The Court accordingly dismissed a writ petition seeking promotion, holding that the dispute constitutes an "industrial dispute" requiring adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by employees of the Jammu & Kashmir Bank Limited, seeking a direction for their promotion as Banking Associates on the same basis as private respondents. The petitioners were appointed as Banking Attendants between 2000 and 2012 and were subsequently promoted as Assistant Banking Associates in 2017.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar, while dismissing the petition, observed,
"The respondent-Jammu and Kashmir Bank, admittedly, is a banking company which is dealing in the business of banking. Therefore, it falls within the definition of 'industry' as contained in section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. So far as the petitioners are concerned, they are employees of the Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited, which, as already stated, qualifies to be an industry under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.”
It added,
“Therefore, irrespective of their income which they are drawing as salary from the respondent Bank, they qualify to be workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In fact, their status as workmen is not even being disputed by the petitioners themselves."
The petitioners were appointed as Banking Attendants in the Jammu & Kashmir Bank Limited on different dates between 2000 and 2012. The respondent Bank issued Circular prescribing a Career Progression Policy for Banking Attendants. As per the Policy, Banking Attendants with graduation and four years of service were eligible for promotion to Assistant Banking Associates, and after two years as Assistant Banking Associates, they would be eligible for promotion as Banking Associates.
In 2016, the Bank sought willingness of eligible candidates for promotion, and after a written test and interview, the petitioners were promoted as Assistant Banking Associates in 2017. After completing two years of service, they became eligible for promotion as Banking Associates. However, while respondents No. 5 and 6 were absorbed as Banking Associates, the petitioners were allegedly ignored.
The petitioners contended that they were equally or superior in merit to the private respondents, but were denied promotion because the private respondents were working in the corporate office and had access to higher echelons. The respondent Bank raised a preliminary objection that the petitioners are "workmen" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the dispute constitutes an "industrial dispute" under Section 2(k), which is amenable to the jurisdiction of an Industrial Tribunal.
Court's Observation
Addressing the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on account of availability of an alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act the Court noted that the respondent Bank is a banking company dealing in the business of banking and falls within the definition of 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The Court observed,
"The petitioners are working as Assistant Banking Associates and they are not working in the respondent Bank in any managerial or supervisory capacity. Therefore, irrespective of their income which they are drawing as salary from the respondent Bank, they qualify to be workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act."
The Court found that the dispute raised by the petitioners pertains to the terms of their employment and qualifies as an "industrial dispute" under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court observed,
"The dispute between the petitioners who happen to be the workmen and the respondent Bank which happens to be their employer, pertains to the terms of their employment, as such, the said dispute qualifies to be an industrial dispute."
The Court noted that the Second Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act enumerates matters within the jurisdiction of Labour Courts, while the Third Schedule illustrates matters within the jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunals, including classification by grades as item No. 7. The Court remarked,
"Classification by grades refers to categorization of workers into distinct ranks or tiers based on skills, duties or responsibility. Thus, disputes regarding grading or classification of workman can be referred to an industrial tribunal."
Answering the petitioners' contention that no Industrial Tribunal constituted by the Central Government exists in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, the Court underscored that as per the provisions contained in third proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Central Government is competent to refer the dispute, in relation to which it is the appropriate government, to a Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal constituted by the State Government."
The Court noted that an Industrial Tribunal headed by an officer of the rank of District Judge is functioning in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu as well as Srinagar. The Court observed, "The petitioners can easily avail the remedy provided under the Industrial Disputes Act by seeking reference of disputes by the Central Government to the aforesaid Tribunal."
The Court relied upon Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke (1976) 1 SCC 496, wherein the Supreme Court held that writ petitions pertaining to industrial disputes for which a statutory remedy is available under the Industrial Disputes Act should not be entertained unless the aggrieved party can demonstrate exceptional circumstances.
The Court observed,
"In the present case, the petitioners have not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would persuade this Court to entertain the present writ petition."
Thus the court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable, holding that the petitioners can avail the appropriate remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act by seeking reference of the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal located at Jammu or Srinagar. The Court declined to render any opinion on the merits of the case.
Case Title: Adil Nisar Wani and Others v. UT of J&K and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 326
Appearances
Petitioners: Mr. G. A. Lone, Senior Advocate; Mr. Mujeeb Andrabi, Advocate
Respondents: Mr. Adil Asmi, Advocate