Bombay High Court

JAYANT GOVINDRAO KULKARNIversusGRUH FINANCE LTD. THROUGH AREA INCHARGE AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

The ESOS options do not amount to an industrial dispute and the complaint was not maintainable, so the High Court upheld the Industrial Court's dismissal.

Summary

Jayant Govindrao Kulkarni filed a complaint before the Industrial Court, Latur, seeking payment for 4,760 shares under an Employee Stock Option Scheme (ESOS) at prevailing market price and other monetary benefits. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint, holding that ESOS options do not constitute an industrial dispute and were not shown to be part of the conditions of service or terms of employment. Kulkarni filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court under Article 227 challenging that order. Justice Siddheshwar S. Thombre examined the record and agreed with the Industrial Court's reasoning, finding no error in the finding of non‑maintainability. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition without costs.

Issues considered

Whether options granted under an Employee Stock Option Scheme (ESOS) constitute an industrial dispute within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court.
Whether ESOS forms part of the conditions of service or terms of employment for the purpose of maintainability of a complaint before the Industrial Court.

Subjects

Industrial Dispute
Employee Stock Option Scheme
Industrial Court
Maintainability
Article 227
High Court
Share Payment

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:492
                                               1 of 2                  997-WP.3761.2021




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               997 WRIT PETITION NO. 3761 OF 2021

                                JAYANT GOVINDRAO KULKARNI
                                             VERSUS
                 GRUH FINANCE LTD. THROUGH AREA INCHARGE AND OTHERS
                                                 ...
               Mr. Amol S. Gandhi, Advocate for the Petitioner.
                                                 ...

                                       CORAM :          SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                       DATE     :       8th JANUARY, 2026

               P.C.:-

               1.       Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioner.


               2.       By the present petition, the Petitioner assails the order dated

               25.06.2019 passed by the Industrial Court, Latur in Complaint (ULP)

               No.05 of 2018, whereby the complaint filed by the Petitioner came to

               be dismissed.


               3.       The Petitioner had filed the said complaint before the

               Industrial Court, Latur, seeking a direction to the Respondents to pay

               the amount in respect of 4,760 shares as per the prevailing market

               price at the relevant time and to grant other monetary benefits to

               which he claimed entitlement.


               4.       The learned Industrial Court, after considering the evidence

               on record and the submissions advanced by both sides, held that the
                                           2 of 2                 997-WP.3761.2021




          complaint itself was not maintainable.


          5.        On a perusal of the record, it appears that the options under

          the ESOS cannot be termed as an industrial dispute, and before the

          Industrial Court, the Petitioner–complainant failed to demonstrate that

          the ESOS formed part of the conditions of service or terms of

          employment. On this count, the Industrial Court dismissed the

          complaint. The findings recorded by the learned Industrial Court

          cannot be faulted with and, therefore, I do not find any reason to

          interfere with the order dated 25.06.2019 passed by the Industrial

          Court, Latur in Complaint (ULP) No.05 of 2018 in exercise of

          jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.


          6.        In view thereof, the petition is dismissed. No order as to

          costs.

                                             (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

Tauseef

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…