### Retired Employees Cannot Raise Industrial Disputes as they fall outside the Definition of 'Workman' under Section 2(s).

The Bank of Madura ("e-BOM") amalgamated with ICICI Bank in 1993 under Section 44A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949

Respondent No. 4, an e-BOM employee, was absorbed by the petitioner bank and superannuated on June 30, 2016, while holding the post of Assistant Manager

Unlike original ICICI employees, e-BOM employees were entitled to pension under the Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995, based on their pay at the time of amalgamation

Nine years after retirement, Respondent No. 4 raised an industrial dispute via the "Samadhan" Portal claiming higher pension based on his last drawn pay in 2016 rather than his 2001 pay

Following a failure report by the Conciliation Officer, the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner referred the matter to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT)

The petitioner challenged this reference order via a writ petition.

1. Whether a retired employee/pensioner falls within the definition of a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for the purpose of raising an industrial dispute

2. Whether the appropriate Government can refer a dispute to a Tribunal without first forming an opinion on whether the claimant is a "workman"

3. Whether the action of the management in calculating pension from the 2001 basic pay instead of the 2016 superannuation pay was legal and justified

Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which defines "workman" as a person currently employed or one who has been dismissed, discharged, or retrenched, notably excluding retirees

Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. Fourth Industrial Tribunal, which established that the definition of "workman" does not include a person who has superannuated

Secretary, Indian Tea Association vs. Ajit Kumar Barat, which mandates that the Government must form a subjective opinion on whether an employee is a workman before making a reference under Section 10

Section 33C(2) regarding the computation of money due, which generally carries a one-year limitation for applications

The Court observed that Respondent No. 4 was a managerial employee (Assistant Manager) at the time of his superannuation, which further excluded him from the "workman" category under Section 2(s)

Applying the Hindustan Lever precedent, the Court reasoned that since the respondent was a retiree and not a dismissed or retrenched employee, he did not satisfy the statutory definition of a workman; consequently, no "industrial dispute" could legally exist

The Court found the impugned reference flawed because the Government referred the question of the respondent's status as a "workman" to the Tribunal (Issue No. 1 of the reference) instead of forming its own opinion as a condition precedent to the reference as required by Indian Tea Association

Additionally, the Court noted that the claim was raised after a delay of nine years, which is inconsistent with the typical one-year period prescribed for computation of dues under Section 33C

the reference order was bad in law as the authority failed to form an opinion on the respondent's status before making the reference

The Court quashed and set aside the order of reference dated May 22, 2025, and allowed the writ application