JUDGMENT - A.V. SAVANT, J.:---Heard both the learned Counsel, Dr. Chandrachud for the petitioner employer and Mr. Puri for respondent No.1 - original complainant employee.

2. The petition seeks to challenge the interim order dated 28th July, 1993 passed by the Industrial Court, Bombay, granting interim reliefs in terms of para 4(a), (b) and (c) of the complaint filed by the respondent workman. In para 4(a), prayer is for an injunction restraining the petitioner employer from dismissing, discharging or terminating the services of the complainant. In para 4(b), prayer is for a direction not to adversely change the service conditions of the complainant and in para 4(c), prayer is for a direction to the petitioner to withdraw the illegal change permanently and pay the amount lost by the complainant by virtue of illegal change. Since the matter has been argued at length, and since the question of interim relief assumes importance in the peculiar nature of the controversy, it has become necessary to record some reasons for this order.

3. The petitioner is a travel agency. It handles several Airlines. From the letter dated August 19, 1992 submitted by the employees to the petitioner, it appears that there are more than 20 employees in the petitioner Company. The first respondent was apparently designated as the Regional Sales Manager at the Bombay Office. The Head-Office is at Delhi. Her salary was initially fixed at Rs. 4800 per month. This is clear from the appointment order at Exhibit "A" dated August 28, 1990. On December 11, 1990 under Exhibit "B", her salary was increased to Rs. 5500/- per month, plus some perquisites, with effect from 1st September, 1990. Under Exhibit "C" dated 30th May, 1991, her salary was increased to Rs. 5600/- per month with effect from 1st April, 1991, plus some perquisites. Under Exhibit "D" dated January 22, 1992 her basic salary was increased to Rs.7100/- with effect from January 1, 1992, plus some perquisites. It is the case of the complainant that by letter dated 22nd May, 1992 the petitioner Company brought about an illegal change in her service conditions by reducing her salary from Rs.7100/- to Rs. 5100/- and putting the remaining allowance under the head of House Rent Allowance whereby she is likely to lose on the other benefits which are dependant upon the basic salary. The letter - Exh."D" dated January 22, 1992 specifically stated that the basic salary had been increased to Rs.7100/- per month. Needless to say that the other benefits would be dependant on the basic salary. The further grievance of the complainant is that the Company also brought about similar illegal changes in the service conditions of the other employees. The employees, therefore, organised themselves and made a representation on 19th August, 1992. The complainant is a signatory to this representation. She is one out of the 21 employees - almost all - who have signed the representation. It reads as under:

" From 1st April, 1992 our salary structure has been changed. This has resulted in a drastic drop in our basic salary. As Provident Fund, EPF Bonus, Gratuity, Annual increments etc. are invariably based on Basic salary, we stand to lose a substantial amount on a recurring basis. We the undersigned would therefore be very grateful if we could be paid our salaries as earlier."

It appears that the complainant took lead in organising the workmen to express their grievances that as a result of the drastic drop in the basic salary they were bound to lose under different Heads such as P.P./Employees Provident Fund, Bonus, gratuity, annual increments etc. on a recurring basis.

4. Prompt came the order dated 5th October, 1992 (Exhibit "F" page 33) under which the complainant was directed to hand over the responsibilities of the United Airlines to Ms. Seema Luthra effective from 6th October, 1992. She was asked to spend two weeks to brief Ms. Luthra on all important matters pertaining to the United Airlines. The letter makes it clear th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document