1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.269 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1222 OF 2007 National Aviation Company of India Ltd. A Government of India Company fully owned by Government of India, having registered Office : Airlines House, 113, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road, New Delhi – 110 001 and Mumbai office at Old Airport, Kalina Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400 029. ..... Appellant V/s. 1. United Labour Union a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act and having its Office at Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400 029. 2. Mr.Justice Ghanshyam Das, Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, at Mumbai, 1st Floor, Sharma Raksha Bhavan, Shivshrushti Road, Sion, Mumbai – 400 022. ..... Respondents Mr.S.K.Talsania, Sr.Counsel i/b M/s.M.V.Kini & Co., for the Appellant Mr.Susheel Mahadeshwar i/b Ranjana Todankar, for the Respondents. CORAM : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR & P.B.MAJMUDAR, JJ. DATED : JUNE 19, 2008. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J.) 1. Heard. 2. Admit. By consent heard forthwith. The learned Advocate for the respondents waive service. 3. The appeal arises from the order dated 27-06-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1222 of 2007. The said Writ Petition was filed against the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal on 13- 12-2006 on an application for interim relief in Reference No.CGIT 1/50 of 2003. 4. It is the contention on behalf of the appellant that pursuant to the order dated 12-12-2002 passed in Writ Petition No.1439 of 1991, the only protection which was available to the respondents was in relation to the employment and against the termination of their services pending the disposal of the reference and not in relation to the wages or the bonus and in any case, the question of grant of bonus cannot arise unless the issue relating to the employer and employee is established. 5. On the other hand, it is the contention on behalf of the respondent that considering the order passed on 03-05-1991 in Writ Petition No.1439 of 1992 read with the order dated 12-12-2002 in the same Writ Petition, there 3 was directions to maintain status-quo, which included the status-quo in relation to payment of wages and bonus and undisputedly, pursuant to the order dated 03-05-1991, the appellants were paying one month's wages as bonus to the respondents and the said practice was sought to be discontinued only after December 2002. Being so, according to the respondents, no fault can be found with the impugned order as well as that of Industrial Tribunal. 6. It is not in dispute that in Writ Petition No.1439 of 1992 by an order dated 03-05-1991, there was specific directions that the workers mentioned in the list annexed to the said petition, who are members of respondents herein, should be employed by the appellant directly under them on the same terms and conditions as were under the contract under which the said workers were employed. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to the said order, the respondents were employed by the appellant on the same terms and conditions which included payment of one month's wages as the bonus to the members of respondents. Undisputedly, the said practice was sought to be unilaterly discontinued by the appellant after the disposal of the said Writ Petition and the order dated 12-12-2002, on the assumption that direction to maintain status-quo in the said order dated 12- 12-2002 did not relate to the payment of wages as bonus. The relevant 4 portion of the order dated 12-12-2002 in the said Writ Petition read thus : “The petitioner shall apply to the concerned Industrial Tribunal for interim relief within a period of four weeks from the date of notice of Reference. Till then, the application for interim is decided by the Industrial Tribunal and for a period of four weeks thereafter, respondent Nos.2 to 4 are directed to maintain status-quo in respect of the services of the concerned contract workmen. It will be open to respondent No.2 to change the contract terms if the new contractor shall engage the same workers subject to the order of the Industrial Tribunal.” 7. Plain reading of the above order would disclose that while disposing the Writ Petition, taking into consideration the earlier order dated 03-05- 1991 granting interim relief, this Court had directed to maintain status-quo in respect of services which would include the matters relating to the payment of wages and bonus. Once it is not in dispute that pursuant to the interim relief granted in the Writ Petition, the workers were continued in employment of the appellant and they were paid one month' s wages as bonus, there was no justification for the appellant to discontinue the said practice after disposal of the Writ Petition, more particularly in view of the specific directions to maintain status-quo. The contention that the direction to maintain status-quo related only to the extent of granting protection 5 against the termination cannot be accepted. There is no justification to take such a restricted view in relation to the direction to maintain status- quo. On the contrary, the specific mention about the liberty granted to change the contractor on the same terms would reveal that this Court while disposing the Writ Petition expected the appellant to continue to employ the workers on the same terms & conditions as were applicable to them on the day of the passing of the order and which were in terms of the order dated 03-05-1991, till the reference is decided by the Industrial Court or any other interim order is passed for justifiable reasons by the Industrial Court. Undisputedly, the application for interim relief was solely based on the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition and as the Industrial Tribunal having granted the same by its order as well as the learned Single Judge having refused to interfere in the said order, the same does not warrant any interference in the appeal. There is no case made out for entertaining the appeal and hence, the appeal is summarily rejected. ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.) ( R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J.)