1. The award of the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No.156 of 1985 has been challenged in this petition. The Reference has been rejected by the Tribunal and the claim of the Petitioners that the clerical staff is entitled to pension has been negated by the Tribunal.

2. In 1948 the James Finlay & Co. (the predecessor of the Respondent Company) introduced a pension scheme for its clerical staff in India. The employees in all the branches of this company were granted benefits under the pension scheme and were informed by a circular dated 2.3.1948. The union representing the workers in the James Finlay & Co. raised demands in 1958 for the introduction of a gratuity scheme for all workers, clerical as well as sub staff. As the James Finlay & Co. did not accede to the demand raised, the dispute was referred for adjudication on 15.1.1964. An award was passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No.111 of 1963 known as the Bilgrami award. Demand No.8 pertained to gratuity while demand No.9 was with respect to pension for subordinate staff. The Tribunal while dealing with these demands has held that the demand for gratuity was unreasonable and, therefore, disallowed it as there was no evidence on record to show that such a practice of paying gratuity prevailed in any comparable concern. Part (b) of this demand for gratuity was that those employees who are entitled to pension in lieu of gratuity should have claimed gratuity instead of pension. The Tribunal held thus: 51. Part (b) of this demand is that those employees who are entitled to pension in lieu of gratuity should have the option to claim gratuity instead of pension. In this concern under the agreement pension is allowed to the clerical staff retiring from the company after 35 years’ service, and the pension granted is quite liberal. The company will not by giving 15 months’ basic wages be worse of, if gratuity is claimed in lieu of pension. I do not see why the company should resist this demand. This demand is granted. The company is directed to give gratuity in place of pension if any of the clerical staff entitled to pension on retirement claim gratuity in lieu of pension.

3. Thus, an option was given to the workers to claim gratuity as demanded by them in lieu of the pension. The Tribunal rejected the demand made for retrospective effect for implementation of the gratuity scheme after it was amended in 1.6.1962.

4. As regards the demand for pension for subordinate staff, the Tribunal held thus: 54. Demand No.9 is for pension for the subordinate staff. This is a novel demand. In fact I have not come across any other company in which for the clerical staff pension is granted. This company has of its own free will granted pension under certain conditions to the clerical staff. I am not certain as to whether the pension in lieu of gratuity would be advantageous to the subordinate staff. If the company had not granted pension to the clerical staff, and there was a demand for them I would have hesitated to grant it. I cannot certainly grant this demand in the case of the subordinate staff. The demand is therefore rejected.

5. Thereafter, in 1965, the company introduced the pension scheme for subordinate staff voluntarily.

6. On 6.10.1972, James Finlay & Co. entered into a settlement with the union representing its workers in respect of several demands including a scheme for gratuity. The settlement stipulated that it was mutually agreed between the parties that all other service conditions which were not covered by the settlement would continue in accordance with the Bilgrami award dated 16.1.1964 and as amended by the agreement of 1.7.1965. All existing facilities were to continue unless specifically altered by the settlement of 6.10.1972. Under this settlement, the gratuity scheme which was introduced was applicable only to those workmen who, being entitled to the benefits under the company’s existing pension scheme, exercised their option for the gratuity