The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a former Bank of India employee seeking adjudication of his compulsory retirement dispute after a delay of over 13 years. The court held that stale industrial disputes cannot be revived after long delays, especially when the matter has already been litigated before multiple forums.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a petition filed by Sri Manish Kumar Pandey, who was appointed as a clerk-cum-accounts clearance staff at Bank of India in July 1994. During his service, Pandey was transferred to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Office branch in 2003.
Read also:- Supreme Court Sets Aside J&K High Court Order in NRI Custody Fight, Sends Case Back for Fresh Decision
While working there, he faced allegations of failing to deposit certain customer funds within the stipulated time. Following a departmental inquiry, the disciplinary authority passed an order in March 2004 directing compulsory retirement under the Memorandum of Settlement dated April 10, 2002.
Pandey challenged the disciplinary order before the appellate authority, but his appeal was dismissed in July 2004. Subsequently, he claimed to have faced severe financial hardship after losing his employment.
Years later, he made representations to bank authorities and also approached the High Court through a writ petition in 2011. However, that petition was dismissed in 2018. Later, Pandey attempted to raise an industrial dispute alleging unlawful compulsory retirement, which ultimately led to the present litigation.
Read also:- Supreme Court Sets Aside Madras HC Order, Says High Courts Can’t Strike Off Plaint When CPC Remedy Exists
Dispute Before Labour Authorities
The petitioner approached the labour authorities and raised an industrial dispute regarding his termination. During conciliation proceedings, the Assistant Labour Commissioner issued a failure report acknowledging the existence of a dispute between the employer and employee.
Despite this, the Ministry of Labour and Employment refused to refer the matter to an industrial tribunal in June 2019, citing an inordinate delay of nearly 13 years from the date of termination. The Ministry relied on Supreme Court precedent stating that stale disputes should not be revived.
Pandey’s review application against the refusal order was also rejected in March 2022. Aggrieved by this, he approached the High Court challenging the government’s refusal to refer the dispute for adjudication.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that once a failure report is issued under the Industrial Disputes Act, the government is expected to refer the dispute for adjudication. It was contended that the government exceeded its administrative role by deciding issues relating to delay and merits of the dispute.
The petitioner further argued that the dispute was purely industrial in nature and required adjudication by a tribunal. He claimed that denial of such adjudication deprived him of an opportunity to seek justice.
Bank and Government’s Stand
The Bank of India opposed the petition, stating that the petitioner had already exhausted all available remedies, including departmental appeal, review proceedings, and earlier writ litigation before the High Court.
The bank emphasized that the industrial dispute was raised after an unreasonable delay of 13 years without sufficient explanation. The respondents argued that although no strict limitation period exists under the Industrial Disputes Act, disputes must still be raised within a reasonable time frame.
Court’s Observations
Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta examined whether the appropriate government had acted within its jurisdiction in refusing to refer the dispute due to delay.
The court noted that serious misconduct charges were proved during the departmental inquiry. It recorded that the petitioner had misappropriated a portion of salary funds entrusted to him and later attempted to rectify the shortfall through personal funds.
The court observed that the petitioner had already challenged the disciplinary action before various forums, including the High Court, and had failed to secure relief. It stated that raising an industrial dispute after more than a decade would serve no meaningful purpose.
“The failure report merely acknowledges the existence of a dispute; it does not curtail the discretion of the Government to examine whether such a dispute deserves reference,” the bench observed.
The court also relied on Supreme Court rulings which held that although the government cannot decide disputes on merits while considering reference, it is justified in refusing to revive stale claims.
Justice Gupta remarked that industrial adjudication is not meant to reopen settled matters, especially where evidence would have become unreliable with the passage of time.
Court’s Decision
The High Court held that the government’s refusal to refer the dispute was based on relevant considerations and binding judicial precedent. The court found no valid explanation from the petitioner for the prolonged delay.
Concluding that the petition lacked merit, the court dismissed the writ petition without any order as to costs and vacated all interim reliefs.
Case Title: Sri Manish Kumar Pandey vs Union of India & Others
Case No.: WPA 13720 of 2022
Decision Date: 04 February 2026
