Authority: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar
Order Date: 07.08.2026
Case Overview
- Petitioners: Adil Nisar Wani & Ors., banking attendants appointed between 2000‑2012, represented by Senior Advocate G. A. Lone.
- Respondent: Union Territory of J&K & Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd., represented by Advocate Adil Asmi.
- Petitioners sought direction for promotion to Banking Associates, citing the bank’s Circular No. 718 (31‑Jan‑2004) and subsequent notifications (13‑Dec‑2016, 17‑Feb‑2017, 21‑Apr‑2017) that promoted them to Assistant Banking Associates.
- After two years as Assistant Banking Associates, they applied for promotion to Banking Associate in 2019; were recommended based on performance but were not absorbed, whereas respondents No. 5 and 6 were promoted.
- Petitioners alleged discrimination violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and claimed the bank ignored their merit.
- The bank raised a preliminary objection, asserting the petitioners are “workmen” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, making the dispute an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) and thus within the jurisdiction of an Industrial Tribunal.
- The bank also cited FIR Nos. 10/2019 and 1/2020 concerning illegal appointments by former chairmen, arguing that pending investigations preclude promotion.
- The Court examined the definition of “workman” (Section 2(s)) and “industry” (Section 2(j)), concluding that Jammu and Kashmir Bank is an industry and the petitioners, as Assistant Banking Associates, are workmen.
- The dispute concerns terms of employment (promotion), satisfying the definition of an industrial dispute under Section 2(k).
- Jurisdictional analysis: Industrial Tribunals under Section 7A (Third Schedule) handle classification/grading disputes. Although the Central Government’s Industrial Tribunal at Chandigarh lacks jurisdiction over UT J&K, the Central Government can refer the dispute to a State‑constituted Industrial Tribunal in J&K (present in Jammu and Srinagar).
- The Court considered precedent: M/S Hotel Alpine Ridge v. Union of India (2024) and Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Wadke (1976), noting that writ petitions are entertained only where no effective statutory remedy exists. Here, an effective remedy (Industrial Tribunal in J&K) is available.
- The petitioners failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstance justifying the writ.
Final Outcome
- The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable; no opinion on merits is rendered.
- Petitioners are free to pursue the appropriate remedy by seeking reference of the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal in Jammu or Srinagar.
Topics: Promotion Dispute, Industrial Tribunal