The main legal point established in the judgment is that employees cannot challenge a change in the conditions of service based on non-compliance with Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 if they have exercised their option and enjoyed the benefits flowing from the change.

R. K. PATRA, J.

( 1 ) THE Management in this writ petition seeks to assail the validity of the award dated july 29, 2002 of the Central Government industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Industrial dispute Case No. 421 of 2001 by which it has held that reduction of house rent with effect from April 1, 1998 to the workmen without complying the provision of Section 9-A of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not justified. The case of the petitioner is that it is a wholly owned Government of Orissa Undertaking whose administrative department is Steel and mines. It carries on mining and other allied operations. By office order dated March 4, 1982 (Annexure-1) house rent allowance was revised with effect from January 1, 1982 at 25% of the basic pay for those head office employees at Bhubaneswar residing in the rented house and 20% of the basic pay for those remaining in their own houses. By subsequent order dated May 6, 1985 (Annexure-2), the rate of house rent allowance for employees at the head office was revised and raised to 30% of basic pay with effect from April 1, 1985 while retaining the rate of house rent allowance same as before for those who are remaining in their own houses within Bhubaneswar N. A. C. area. By office order dated December 12, 1986 (Annexure-3) the pay scales, allowances and other service conditions of all employees of the petitioner working within the State and beyond were revised with effect from January 1, 1985 in a package. So far as house rent is concerned, the said order provided that employees at the head office, delhi, Calcutta and Bangalore would get it at the rate of 30%, those working in regional office at the rate of 25% and those working in the Mines at the rate of 20% of their basic pay. The next revision of pay scales and other allowances was made by office order dated august 24, 1991 (Annexure-4 ). But so far as house rent allowance was concerned, it was indicated that the existing rates would continue. The next revision of pay scales, allowances and other service benefits was made by office order dated February 3, 1999 (Annexure-5) with effect from January 1, 1996. The revision of house rent allowance was, however, given effect from June 1, 1998. By the said revision, the concerned employees were given option as to whether they would accept the revised pay scales with all other conditions or would continue in the old pre-revised scales of pay. It was mentioned therein that if options were not offered within the time stipulated therein, it would be presumed that the said employees have elected to be governed by the revised scales of pay. It was also mentioned therein that the amount of house rent allowance shall not be less than the amount received by the employees in their old scales of pay, but the employees shall get the house rent allowance at the old rates in the pre-revised scales of pay from January 1, 1996 to May 31, 1998. After receiving the beneficial emoluments available under Annexure-5, the employees raised dispute which came to be referred to the industrial Tribunal for adjudication. By the impugned award, the Tribunal has accepted the plea of the workmen holding that the reduction of house rent allowance (sic) without complying with Section 9-A of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 is not justified and the concerned workmen are entitled to get house rent as per the office orders dated March 4, 1982 and May 6, 1985.

( 2 ) SHRI Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by office order dated february 3, 1999 (Annexure-5) the employees were offered the revision of scales of pay and other allowances as a package and they were given option either to accept the benefits available thereunder or to continue with their existing pay scales and allowances and after exercising option, they cannot go back from the choice and challenge the same on the ground of absence of notice under section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. In support of this, he placed reliance on a judgm