Facts: The Petitioner, Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), had a long-standing policy initiated in 1967 to grant one or two additional wage increments to clerical employees who acquired Diplomas in Local Self Government (LSGD) or Local Government Service (LGS). This policy was reaffirmed and modified through various resolutions and circulars in 1968, 1975, 1984, and 2009. On September 5, 2025, the BMC issued a new circular prospectively discontinuing these additional increments for employees acquiring such diplomas after August 29, 2025. The Respondent-Unions challenged this circular before the Industrial Court, alleging it constituted an unfair labour practice as it was issued without a notice of change.
Procedural Posture: The Respondents filed a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices (MRTU & PULP) Act, 1971. The Industrial Court granted an interim stay on the operation of the circular dated September 5, 2025, and directed BMC to continue the earlier practice. BMC filed the present writ petitions before the High Court challenging this interlocutory order.
Issue: Whether the prospective withdrawal of a long-standing, consistently applied wage increment policy constitutes a change in the conditions of service requiring a mandatory notice under Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, thereby justifying interim protection.
Holding: Yes, the High Court upheld the Industrial Court's order, finding that the Respondents established a strong prima facie case that the unilateral withdrawal of a customary concession requires compliance with Section 9-A.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that a benefit extended consistently over decades, approved by administrative authorities and acted upon by employees, crystallizes into a "customary concession" or "service condition" under Item 8 of the Fourth Schedule. Section 9-A is intended to prevent workmen from being confronted with unilateral changes to established conditions without an opportunity to respond. The Court rejected the argument that because the change was prospective and did not reduce existing wages, it did not attract Section 9-A. It held that the "change in conditions of service" has a wide amplitude and covers alterations to the framework of future pay advancements. Since BMC failed to issue the statutory notice of change, the Respondents established a prima facie case of unfair labour practice. The interim stay was deemed necessary to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable injury to employees qualifying during the pendency of the litigation.