The demands raised by a union representing workmen must be connected to service conditions or terms of employment to constitute an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act.

F.I. Rebello,J.:

Rule. By consent heard forthwith.

2. The Petitioner is a registered union which is also a recognized Union of employees, working at Cement House of their employer A.C.C. Limited, Respondent No. 3 herein. Various categories of staff are employed at the Cement House and amongst these categories are the bargainable staff who are workmen. This petition is filed by the Union on behalf of its members, who are the bargainable staff and who are falling within the meaning of Workman as set out in a Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

3. The Petitioner in a brief history of labour legislation, has pointed out that the workers after they started organizing themselves started raising various demands such as fixing age of superannuation, wages linked to cost of living index, gratuity, pension, provident fund, bonus, gratuity, maternity leave and recently paternity leave. With social changes in the society, several demands raised on behalf of the workmen were adjudicated and granted as service conditions which were not service conditions earlier. Some of the service conditions subsequently were recognised by legislatures and laws were enacted such as The Payment of Bonus Act, The Payment of Gratuity Act, Maternity Benefits Act. etc. All these legislations/service conditions, it is stated are in relation to and arising out of employment.

4. According to the Petitioner, they raised a demand on the employer for the benefit of workmen, which was not going to financially burden the employer. The demand was that the worker should be made a stock holder in the company. By their demand as raised, it was contended that workers should be given an option to subscribe to equity shares in the company at 10% discount of the average weighted price of the equity share of ACC Ltd. on BSE OR NSE in the preceding six months. The entitlement to exercise an option to subscribe to equity shares may vary depending on the number of years the worker has worked. The option to subscribe to equity share is already prevailing in the 3rd respondent company for one set of employees who are not bargainable staff. According to Petitioner, the 3rd Respondent by letter dated 12.11.2007 replied to them contending that they had to comply with various guide-lines as the employees stock option scheme is governed by the SEBI guide-lines. This includes approval of the Compensation committee, Board of Directors, as also approval of the share holders. The provision did not provide for grant of option of entitlement to employees on recurring or retrospective basis.

5. The Petitioners by their justification letter dated 3rd December, 2007, served on the second respondent tried to resolve the dispute under the mechanism of Industrial Disputes Act. The second respondent Assistant Commissioner of Labour, according to Petitioners instead of initiating conciliation proceedings, started preliminary discussions. This procedure is unknown to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The 3rd respondent by letter dated 3.1.2008 contended that the demands cannot be made as it is not a part of remuneration. Preliminary discussions took place and ultimately the second respondent by his letter dated 18.1.2008 refused to intervene in the matter as in his opinion the demand had nothing to do with the conditions of service or co-related to it and the same is governed by the SEBI (Employee Stock Option Scheme) Guide-lines, 1999 and the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The second respondent thus came to the conclusion that it is not connected with terms of employment or non-employment.

According to Petitioner, the second respondent contradicted itself by giving a finding that the ESOP cannot be a service condition as it is not part of remuneration. Then it means that it is a service conditions in case of one set of employees. An inference therefore, it is submitted arises that it is a service condition in case of a set of employees. However, 3rd respond