JUDGMENT : Vaidialingam, J. 1. In this appeal by special leave, Mr A.C. Mitra, learned counsel for the Management-appellant challenges the award, dated January 22, 1965 of the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, accepting a complaint, filed by the respondent, under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947, (hereinafter called "the Act"). 2. A request, made by the workmen of the appellant company, that carbide drums should be sold to them at concessional rates was considered by the Works Committee, on June 27, 1961 and acceded to, by the company's representatives, who were present at the said meeting, along with the workers' representatives, by expressing the company's willingness to sell carbide drums at concessional rates, once a fortnight, subject to availability of drums. It was also recorded, at the said meeting of the Works Committee that not more than one drum, at a time, would be sold to an employee, at a reasonable interval. A copy of the minutes so receded, is Exhibit C-2. The company published a notice, Exhibit B-2, on July 12, 1961 indicating the price of the various types of drums. It was also mentioned that the drums would be distributed, twice a month, and that the sale to an individual employee, would be on the understanding that the purchase was for his personal and private use. 3. Sometime later, a complaint was filed, under Section 33-A, by some of the workmen of the appellant company, before the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, alleging that the appellant company was guilty of contravention of Sections 9-A and 32 of the Act. According to those Workmen, the sale of drums, by the management, at a concessional rate, to the workmen, had become a part of their conditions of service, and that the company has committed a breach of the condition, by refusing to sell carbide drums, at concessional rates. To sustain their complaint, the workmen relied on Exhibits B-2 and C-2, referred to above. The claim of the workmen, in short, was that they had always been getting drums, at an interval of a fortnight, according to their requirements, and this condition which has become a part of their conditions of service, was not being acted upon, by the management. 4. The management, on the other hand, resisted the claim of the workmen. The claim of the workmen, in short, was that they had always been getting drums, at an interval of a fortnight, according to their requirements, and this condition which has become a part of their conditions of service, was not being acted upon, by the management. 4. The management, on the other hand, resisted the claim of the workmen. They pleaded that the sale of empty carbide drums, to the workmen, was really a matter of concession, and what was noted in the Minutes of the Works Committee, Exhibit C-2, was in no sense a condition of service. The management further pleaded that the complaint, under Section 33A, was not maintainable, inasmuch as they had not altered any condition of service, applicable to the workmen, much less any condition of service, in regard to any matter connected with ID No. 32/63, which was pending adjudication. 5. The Tribunal has held that the sale of drums, to employees, as mentioned in Exhibit C-2, has become a condition of service, and that by the refusal of the management, to sell drums, it has altered the conditions of service of the workmen. The Tribunal, no doubt, holds that this condition of service is not connected with ID No. 32/63; but, nevertheless, it has taken the view that the Management in not entitled to alter the conditions of service, except in accordance with the provisions of Section 9-A of the Act. The Tribunal has interpreted the minutes of the Works Committee, evidenced by Exhibit C-2, and the notice, put up by the management, Exhibit B-2, as entitling a workman to get one drum, every fortnight, as constituting an agreement between the parties, and as a condition of service. Ultimately, the Tribunal has upheld the claim of the workmen. 6. Mr Mitra, learned counsel for the appellant, attacked the interpretation, put upon Exhibits C-2 and B-2, by the Tribunal. Counsel further urged that when once the Tribunal upheld the plea of the Management that there had been, in any event, no alteration of the conditions of service, with regard to any matter connected with ID No. 32 of 1963, it should have rejected the complaint, filed by the workmen, under Section 33-A, as not maintainable. The question of applicability of Section 9-A, counsel urged, did not at all arise. 7. The question of applicability of Section 9-A, counsel urged, did not at all arise. 7. Mr O.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent workmen, supported in full the various reasons, given by the Tribunal, for accepting the claim of the workmen. 8. In our opinion, the Tribunal has committed a grave error in construing what is contained in Exhibits C-2 and B-2, as constituting an agreement between the management and the Union. It has also further erred in holding that the matters, mentioned in Exhibit C-2, had become part of the conditions of service of the workmen, and that, in this instant case, the management had committed a breach of that condition of service, by not selling carbide drums to the workmen. 9. Section 3 of the Act deals with the constitution of works Committee and its duties. This Court, in North Brook Jute Co. Ltd. v. Workmen, (1960) 3 SCR 364 as held that the duty and authority of the Works Committee could not extend to anything more than making comments on matters of common interest, between the employers and the workmen, and to endeavour to compose any material difference of opinion, in respect of such matters. It cannot, in case before us, be held that the management, by acceding to a request made by the workmen, and evidenced by Exhibit C-2, in any manner intended that the sale of carbide drums, on a concessional basis, to the workmen, should form part of the conditions of service of the workmen. Exhibits C-2 and B-2 clearly show that the management was only considering a request, made by the workmen, for sale of drums, as and when available, at concessional rates, and at reasonable intervals. There is no indication, in these two Exhibits, that any obligation was, as such, imposed, on the management, or of any right being vested, in the workmen, to compel the management, to sell the drums to them. 10. We may also deal with the alternative contention, of the management, regarding the construction to be placed, on Exhibit C-2. The management's case, in this regard, is that there is no obligation, cast upon them, to sell empty carbide drums, at concessional rates, as and when they were required by the employees, but, on the other hand, these drums were sold to the employees, at reasonable intervals, subject to availability. The management's case, in this regard, is that there is no obligation, cast upon them, to sell empty carbide drums, at concessional rates, as and when they were required by the employees, but, on the other hand, these drums were sold to the employees, at reasonable intervals, subject to availability. Their further case is that the sale of the drums is to be done in such a manner as to ensure an equal distribution, among all the employees. We are satisfied that, on a proper construction of Exhibit C-2, the management's stand, in this regard, is correct. 11. Once it is held that the matters, referred to in Exhibits C-2 and B-2, do not from part of the conditions of service, it follows that, by the Management declining to sell drums, it cannot be considered to have committed any alteration, in the conditions of service, which is the very basis, for a complaint under Section 33-A. Section 9-A of the Act does not apply, as wrongly assumed by the Tribunal, because there is no alteration of a condition of service. Even assuming that the sale of carbide drums, in the manner pleaded by the workmen, is part of the conditions of service, in this case the Tribunal has itself held that the said condition of service is not connected with ID No. 32/63. On this finding, the proper thing would have been for the Tribunal to dismiss, as not maintainable, the complaint, filed by the workmen, under Section 33-A of the Act. 12. For all the reasons, given above, the award of the Industrial Tribunal is set aside, and this appeal, allowed. There will be no order as to costs.