Justice Srikrishna's ruling holds tremendous significance since it is the first-ever verdict of a high court on sexual harassment at workplace. In the words of Mudbhatkal's advocate Anand Grover: ``For the first time, a high court has passed a detailed order on an actual instance of sexual harassment. So far, the Supreme Court had only laid down broad guidelines on this much-discussed subject and there was no real test case argued right from the lower court (labour court in this case) to the high court.''

Upholding the First Labour Court's (Tardeo) observations, the judge ruled that Mudbhatkal was victim of an ``operation scuttle'' in the airline company which started with threats to terminate her husband's job in Saudi Arabia. Thiswas soon after she objected to sexual advances made by Station Manager (Airport) Abdul Allah Bahrani. Later she was forced to give an apology for her complaint. When she took up the matter again with higher authorities, her services were summarily terminated by putting forth concocted reasons. ``The conduct of Bahrani would squarely fit in with the concept of `sexual harassment' as defined by the Supreme Court in the case of Vishakha vs State of Rajasthan,'' the judge ruled while dismissing the company's petition against the labour court award. The company has also been ordered to pay Rs 10,000 to Mudbhatkal as costs of litigation.

According to Justice Srikrishna: ``Camaraderie between the boss and subordinates is welcome, (but) it should remain within bounds. And Bahrani often transgressed the limits of a healthy relationship with a subordinate of the opposite sex.'' The sexual advances, judgment says, started with offers of lunch and dinner and soon Bahrani was asking Mudbhatkal intimate questions. Whenshe objected, he denied her a promotion. She then approached the country manager who advised her not to ``make a big issue of Bahrani's conduct.''

Bahrani, meanwhile, continued to put pressure on her - first by denying her leave and then by relegating her to the post of a typist. Finally, Mudbhatkal took up the matter with the Ministry of Defence and Aviation, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. But when she came back from Jeddah after lodging a complaint, she found that her services had been terminated. She then moved the labour court and thus began the marathon legal battle.

Though Advocate J P Cama representing Saudi Arabian Airlines, questioned the jurisdiction of the labour court to try a matter which involved the Central Government, Justice Srikrishna dismissed his argument. His contention that the state labour court was not competent enough to hear the case in view the amendment in the Industrial Disputes Act too was rejected by Justice Srikrishna who maintained that since the amendment took place during thependency of the matter, it did not apply to the case.