Judgment :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The writ application has been preferred praying for direction upon the respondent authorities to withdraw/cancel the order of reference dated May 22, 2025, passed by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Government of India, and thus prays for quashing the impugned reference order dated May 22, 2025.

2. The petitioner's case herein is that the Bank of Madura (hereinafter "e-BOM") was amalgamated with the petitioner bank with effect from March 10, 1993 by virtue of a scheme of amalgamation in terms of Section 44A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.

3. The respondent no. 4, originally an employee of e-BOM, became an employee of the petitioner bank, since the date of amalgamation. He continued to receive salaries and benefits like the employees of the Petitioner bank after the merger of e-BOM with the petitioner bank.

4. The employees of the petitioner bank do not have a provision for pension. However, the employees of e-BOM who had been absorbed in the service of the petitioner bank, get pension in terms of Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995 on the basis of the basic pay drawn by them on the date of amalgamation.

5. This limited liability is owed by the Petitioner bank as a part of the conditions of the amalgamation. Since the Petitioner bank does not have its own Pension Regulations, no service condition of the employees of the Petitioner bank is reconcilable with the Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995 and the pension calculation under the Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995 ceased to have effect post amalgamation date.

6. Thus, for the purpose of pension, the employees of the erstwhile e-BOM are separately classed than the employees of the Petitioner bank.

7. The respondent no. 4, on June 30, 2016, superannuated from the service of the petitioner bank, on attainment of 60 years of age. He was holding the post of Assistant Manager on the date of superannuation and therefore, a managerial employee. He was not a "workman" within the meaning of the Industrial Dispute Act on the date of superannuation.

8. The petitioner Bank does not have any trade union to represent its workers. Post superannuation, the Respondent no. 4 had raised a purported industrial dispute over the issue of his entitlement to higher pension in terms of Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995 by lodging a complaint with the "Samadhan" Portal.

9. Conciliation proceedings were thereafter initiated in the offices of the Respondent nos. 2 and 3.

10. The Respondent no. 2, being the Conciliation Officer, submitted a failure report to the Government of India.

11. The respondent no. 3 then issued the impugned order of reference to the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Kolkata over the issue of calculation of pension.

12. Hence, the writ application on the following grounds:-

I) That there was no material before the Government to make the impugned order of reference.

II) That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the conciliation officer had failed to discharge its statutory duties to enquire as to whether there was any industrial dispute in existence capable of being conciliated upon.

III) A retired employee, even if he be a ‘workman’, cannot raise an "industrial dispute

13. The present case instituted by an individual employee without being sponsored as a collective dispute by a substantial number of workmen of the industry, could not have been referred for adjudication.

14. As, the respondent no. 4 was a managerial personnel, the reference ought not to have been made by the appropriate Government.

15. Thus, it is stated that the order of reference is bad in law.

16. Written notes have been filed by both the parties.

17. The petitioner has reiterated it's case as made out in the writ application and has relied upon the following judgments:-

i) Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. Fourth Industrial Tribunal & Ors. Reported in 2006 SCC OnLine Cal 651, Para 33 and 42.

“33. Thus, if on an admitted fact the issue of main