OWP No. 417/2019 [WP (C) No. 1163/2019] HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR OWP No. 417/2019 [WP (C) No. 1163/2019] Reserved on: 17.12.2024 Pronounced on: 01.01.2025 1. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. Corporate Headquarters, M. A. Road, Srinagar. 2. Assistant Vice President J&K Bank Ltd., Corporate Headquarters, Srinagar. 3. Associate Executive Establishment HRDD J&K Bank Ltd., Corporate Headquarters, Srinagar. 4. Zonal Head J&K Bank (Jammu North) Doda, Jammu. 5. Cluster Head (Cluster III) Jammu North Kishtwar, Jammu. 6. Branch Manager J&K Bank Main Branch Doda, Jammu. 7. Branch Manager J&K Bank Goha Marmat Doda, Jammu. Through its Attorney Holder, Namely, Peerzada Umer Amin S/o Peerzada Mohammad Amin R/o Tarbal Nawakadal, Srinagar. …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Rabinder Singh, Adv. VERSUS 1. Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court J&K at Srinagar through its Presiding Officer. 2. Qaiser Qalandar, S/o Farid Ahmad Zargar, R/o Mohammad Irfanabad Doda Jammu. …Respondent(s) Through: Mr. S. R. Khawar, Adv. Mr. Aabid Hameed, Adv. OWP No. 417/2019 [WP (C) No. 1163/2019] CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1. The respondent No. 2 had filed an application under Section 2-A (2) read with section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with the respondent No. 1, praying thereby that the voluntary vacation/cessation order be declared as null and void and the petitioner-Bank be directed to reinstate him in services with immediate effect with all the consequential service benefits. 2. The petitioners filed their response and raised a preliminary objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court of J&K at Srinagar on the ground that the ‘appropriate Government’ in respect of “Banking” is a Central Government in terms of Section 2(a) of the Act (supra), therefore, the Tribunal being the State Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court has no jurisdiction to try the matter. After hearing the parties, the respondent No. 1 vide its order dated 13.03.2019 rejected the preliminary objection raised by the petitioners by arriving at a conclusion that the State Government is the ‘appropriate Government’ for the bank and the Industrial Tribunal- Labour Court established by the State Government shall have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the application filed by the respondent No.2. To arrive at the above-mentioned conclusion, the respondent No. 1 placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of OWP No. 417/2019 [WP (C) No. 1163/2019] India in case titled as “Nashik Workers Union vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited” reported in (2016) 6 SCC 224. 3. The petitioner-bank has impugned the order dated 13.03.2019 passed by the respondent No. 1 through the medium of present petition on the ground that the reliance placed upon the judgment in case titled “Nashik Workers Union vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited” (supra) by the learned Tribunal is misplaced, as in case of ‘banks’ it is only the Industrial Tribunal, established by the Central Government, which has the jurisdiction to deal with the Industrial disputes. 4. The respondent No. 2-the applicant before the Tribunal has objected to the petition by asserting that the J&K Bank is an authority and instrumentality of the State and was created by Maharaja of Jammu & Kashmir. Further, the UT Government has a major shareholding of nearly 59.3% in the J&K Bank ltd. and thus it has both financial and administrative control over the Bank. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The following issues arise for determination: A. Whether in case of industrial dispute between Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. and its workman, the Central Government or the State Government i.e. Government of UT of J&K is the ‘appropriate Government’ in terms of Section 2(a) of the Act (supra)? B. Whether the Industrial Tribunal-Labour Court established by the State Government of J&K, now Government of UT of J&K, has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the industrial dispute between the J&K Bank Ltd. and its workman? Page 4 of 9 OWP No. 417/2019 [WP (C) No. 1163/2019] ISSUE A: “Whether in case of industrial dispute between Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. and its workman, the Central Government or the State Government i.e. Government of UT of J&K is the ‘appropriate Government’ in terms of Section 2(a) of the Act (supra)?” 7. Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides that “appropriate government” means in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, or by a railway company or concerning any such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government or in relation to an industrial dispute concerning a Dock Labour Board established under section 5A of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 (9 of 1948), or the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited formed and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation established under section 3 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of Trustees constituted under section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948), or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Boards of Trustees constituted under section 5A and section 5B, respectively, of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956), or [the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)], or Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of India established under section 3 or a Board of Management established for two or more contiguous States under section 16 Page 5 of 9 OWP No. 417/2019 [WP (C) No. 1163/2019] of the Food Corporations Act, 1964 (37 of 1964), or [the Airports Authority of India constituted under section 3 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 (55 of 1994)], or a Regional Rural Bank established under section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (21 of 1976), or the Export Credit and Guarantee Corporation Limited or the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India [the National Housing Bank established under section 3 of the National Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53 of 1987)], or an air transport service, or a banking or an insurance company, a mine, an oilfield] [, a Cantonment Board,] or a 6 [major port, any company in which not less than fifty-one per cent. of the paid-up share capital is held by the Central Government, or any corporation, not being a corporation referred to in this clause, established by or under any law made by Parliament, or the Central public sector undertaking, subsidiary companies set up by the principal undertaking and autonomous bodies owned or controlled by the Central Government, the Central Government, and] (ii) in relation to any other industrial dispute, including the State public sector undertaking, subsidiary companies set up by the principal undertaking and autonomous bodies owned or controlled by the State Government, the State Government: Provided that in case of a dispute between a contractor and the contract labour employed through the contractor in any industrial establishment where such dispute first arose, the appropriate Government shall be the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, which has control over such industrial establishment; 8. Section 2(bb) of the Act (supra) provides that the “banking company” means ” means a banking company as defined in section 5 of the Banking Companies Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), having branches or other establishments in more than one State, and includes [the Export-Import Bank of India,] [the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India,] [the Small Industries Development Bank of India established under section 3 of the Small Industries Development Bank of India Act, 1989 (39 of OWP No. 417/2019 [WP (C) No. 1163/2019] 1989),] the Reserve Bank of India, the State Bank of India [ a corresponding new bank constituted under section 3 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970) 5 [, a corresponding new bank constituted under section 3 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 (40 of 1980), and any subsidiary bank]] as defined in the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 (38 of 1959);] 9. Section 5 (c) of the Act No. 10 of 1949 provides that the “banking company” means any company which transacts the business of banking in India. Section 5 (b) of the Act No.10 of 1949 defines banking as accepting, for the purpose of lending or investment, of deposits of money from the public, repayable on demand or otherwise, and withdrawable by cheque, draft, order or otherwise. Section 5(d) of the Act (supra) provides that the company means as defined in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956. 10. Section 3(1)(i) of the Companies Act, 1956 provides that company means a company formed and registered under this Act or an existing company as defined in clause (ii). 11. Section 3(1)(ii) of the Companies Act, 1956 provides that "existing company" means a company formed and registered under any of the previous companies laws specified below: - (a) any Act or Acts relating to companies in force before the Indian Companies Act, 1866 (10 of 1866), and repealed by that Act ; (b) the Indian Companies Act, 1866 (10 of 1866) ; (c) the Indian Companies Act, 1882 (6 of 1882) ; OWP No. 417/2019 [WP (C) No. 1163/2019] (d) the Indian Companies Act, 1913 (7 of 1913) ; (e) the Registration of Transferred Companies Ordinance, 1942 (54 of 1942) ; and (f) any law corresponding to any of the Acts or the Ordinance aforesaid and in force in the merged territories or in a Part B States (other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir), or any part thereof, before the extension thereto of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 (7 of 1913) ; or in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, or any part thereof, before the commencement of the Jammu and Kashmir (Extension of Laws) Act, 1956 (62 of 1956), insofar as banking, insurance and financial corporations are concerned, and before the commencement of the Central Laws (Extension to Jammu & Kashmir) Act, 1968 (25 of 1968), insofar as other corporations are concerned ; and (g) the Portuguese Commercial Code, insofar as it relates to "sociedades anonimas"; 12. The Jammu and Kashmir Bank ltd. was incorporated as a public limited company under the Jammu and Kashmir Companies Regulations Number 11 of 1977 on 01.10.1938 i.e. much before the commencement of the Central Laws (Extension to Jammu & Kashmir) Act, 1968 (25 of 1968). Thus, the Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd is an “existing company” within the meaning of the Companies Act and is a ‘company’ in terms of the Companies Act, 1956. Further, section 2 (20) of the Companies Act 2013, provides that the company means company incorporated under this law or any previous law. The Jammu and Kashmir Bank ltd. is involved in the business of ‘banking’, having its branches all over the country and as such has all the attributes of ‘banking company’ as defined under the Act No.10 of 1949, which finds reference in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Page 8 of 9 OWP No. 417/2019 [WP (C) No. 1163/2019] 13. Thus, this court is of the considered view that in case of industrial dispute between the Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. and its workman, the appropriate Government would be ‘the Central Government’. The issue No.1 is decided accordingly. ISSUE B: “Whether the Industrial Tribunal-Labour Court established by the State Government of J&K, now Government of UT of J&K, has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the industrial dispute between the J&K Bank Ltd. and its workman?” 14. As this court has arrived at the conclusion that the central government is appropriate government in case of an industrial dispute between the petitioner bank and its workman, therefore as a natural consequence, the Industrial Tribunal-Labour Court, established by the central government ordinarily shall have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the industrial dispute between the petitioner- bank and its workman. The perusal of proviso to section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reveals that the dispute, where the Central Government is the appropriate Government, it shall be within the competence of that Government to refer the dispute to a labour court or Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, constituted by the State Government. Thus, the Central Government can refer the dispute to a labour court or Industrial Tribunal, constituted by the State Government, but otherwise the Industrial Tribunal- Labour Court, established by the central government ordinarily shall have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the industrial dispute between the petitioner- bank and its workman. Accordingly, it is held that in case of an industrial dispute between the J&K Bank Ltd. and its workman, only the labour court or Industrial tribunal, OWP No. 417/2019 [WP (C) No. 1163/2019] established by the Central Government, shall have power to adjudicate the same but the Central Government may refer the dispute to labour court or Industrial Tribunal established by the State Government and in that eventuality only, the labour court or Industrial Tribunal established by the State Government shall have jurisdiction to adjudicate the same. 15. The perusal of the order impugned reveals that the learned Tribunal has not considered the controversy in its right perspective and has relied upon the judgment, which was not at all applicable in the instant case. 16. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of by directing the respondent No. 1 to return the application filed by the respondent No.2 to him and thereafter the respondent No.2 shall be at liberty to get the dispute settled in accordance with law. Needless, to say that the period of limitation shall not come in the way of the respondent No.2 in availing the remedy under the Industrial Disputes, Act 1947, in accordance with law. 17. Disposed of. (RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 01.01.2025. Sakeena Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No