Srinagar, Sep 8: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a writ petition filed by a group of Jammu and Kashmir Bank employees seeking promotion to the post of Banking Associates, holding that their grievance falls within the ambit of industrial adjudication.

Justice Sanjay Dhar, in a judgment delivered on August 7, 2026, said the employees had an alternative and effective remedy before an Industrial Tribunal and had failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstance that would justify the High Court’s intervention.
The petitioners had joined Jammu and Kashmir Bank as Banking Attendants between 2000 and 2012. They sought promotion to Banking Associate, alleging that two similarly placed employees had been granted the benefit despite the petitioners claiming comparable or superior merit and suitability.
The dispute arose from the bank’s Career Progression Policy introduced in 2004. Under the policy, graduate Banking Attendants with four years of service could become eligible for promotion as Assistant Banking Associates. After completing two years in that position, employees could become eligible for promotion as Banking Associates.
The petitioners participated in the promotion exercise conducted in 2016 and were appointed Assistant Banking Associates in April 2017. Following completion of the required two-year period, they again participated in the Career Progression process in 2019 and claimed that their names had been recommended for regular absorption as Banking Associates.
However, the bank did not promote them, while respondents 5 and 6 were absorbed into the higher post. The employees subsequently approached the High Court, alleging discrimination in the promotion process.
The bank challenged the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the employees were “workmen” within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that their grievance related to service conditions and therefore constituted an industrial dispute.
Justice Dhar accepted the objection. The court observed that Jammu and Kashmir Bank qualifies as an “industry” under the Act and that the petitioners, who were working as Assistant Banking Associates without managerial or supervisory functions, came within the definition of workmen.
The court further held that the dispute over their placement in the higher grade of Banking Associates concerned their service conditions and could be adjudicated by an Industrial Tribunal under Section 7A read with the Third Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The petitioners had argued that the absence of a Central Government Industrial Tribunal in J&K rendered the alternative remedy ineffective. The court rejected the contention, noting that Industrial Tribunals headed by officers of District Judge rank are functioning at Jammu and Srinagar. It also observed that the Central Government could refer an industrial dispute to a tribunal constituted by the UT government.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke, the court reiterated that writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked in industrial disputes where an effective statutory remedy is available, unless exceptional circumstances are shown.
The High Court accordingly dismissed the writ petition and connected applications without entering into the merits of the employees’ promotion claims.
The petitioners, however, remain free to pursue their grievance before the competent Industrial Tribunal, the court said. The judgment was pronounced on August 7, 2026, and marked as reportable and speaking.