Court Holds Jammu & Kashmir Bank Employees as "Workmen" Under Industrial Disputes Act, Emphasizes Exhaustion of Statutory Remedies Before Writ Petition
In a significant judgment dated August 7, 2026, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, Srinagar bench, adjudicated a writ petition filed by employees of Jammu & Kashmir Bank seeking promotion as Banking Associates. The Court clarified that the petitioners, who are employees designated as Banking Attendants and Assistant Banking Associates, fall within the definition of "workmen" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Consequently, any dispute concerning their promotion and service conditions constitutes an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the Act and must be resolved by the competent Industrial Tribunal.
The petitioners contended that despite fulfilling the eligibility criteria and undergoing the prescribed selection process, they were denied promotion while their counterparts were promoted. Allegations of discrimination and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution were made on the ground that the promoted candidates had better access within the bank's corporate office. The petitioners further argued that FIRs registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau against certain bank officials did not implicate them and thus should not impact their promotion.
The respondent Jammu & Kashmir Bank opposed the writ petition, asserting that the petitioners' status as "workmen" brought their dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. The bank highlighted the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy through the Industrial Tribunal, which is the appropriate forum for adjudicating such disputes. The bank also cited the implementation of a new promotion policy approved in 2022, which differed from the earlier Career Progression Policy under which respondents No.5 and 6 were promoted.
Addressing the maintainability of the writ petition, the Court emphasized the clear legislative intent that industrial disputes involving workmen and employers must be adjudicated by Labour Courts or Industrial Tribunals constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Jammu & Kashmir Bank qualifies as an "industry" under Section 2(j) of the Act, and the petitioners' dispute regarding promotion directly relates to terms and conditions of their employment, falling squarely within the definition of an industrial dispute.
The Court acknowledged the petitioners' submission regarding the absence of a Central Government constituted Industrial Tribunal in Jammu & Kashmir and the logistical hardship of approaching the Industrial Tribunal located in Chandigarh. However, the Court noted the Central Government's power under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act to refer disputes to the Industrial Tribunal constituted by the State Government of Jammu & Kashmir. It was pointed out that Industrial Tribunals headed by officers of District Judge rank are functioning at Jammu and Srinagar, making the remedy accessible and efficacious.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, particularly the ruling in Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke (1976) 1 SCC 496, the High Court reiterated that writ petitions should not be entertained in matters involving industrial disputes when an alternative statutory remedy exists, except in exceptional circumstances. The petitioners failed to demonstrate such exceptional circumstances.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition without addressing the merits of the case and directed the petitioners to seek redressal through the Industrial Tribunal. The judgment underscores the primacy of the Industrial Disputes Act framework in resolving labor-related disputes and cautions against judicial overreach when specialized tribunals are empowered to adjudicate such matters.
Bottom Line:
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Dispute concerning promotion and service conditions of employees categorized as "workmen" under the Act must be adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal. High Court should not entertain a writ petition when an alternative and efficacious remedy exists under the Industrial Disputes Act unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.
Statutory provision(s):
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Sections 2(s), 2(k), 2(j), 7, 7A, 10(1)
Adil Nisar Wani v. UT of J&K, (J&K and Ladakh)(Srinagar) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2956691
