Judgement

B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.:- Civil Appeals Nos. 325 and 551 of 1981 are preferred against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court allowing the writ petition filed by respondents, B.R. Age, and others and quashing the directions given by the Central Government on July 23, 1975 to Air India to provide reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the services under the Corporation. The directions were issued under Section 34(1) of the Air Corporations Act, 1953. The directions are very elaborate in nature, the sum and substance whereof is to provide reservations in the matter of appointments or posts under the Corporation. The respondents-writ petitioners contended before the Bombay High Court that the directions so given are ultra vires the powers of the Central Government, not being within the ambit of Section 34(1) of the said Act. They submitted that the said directions cannot also be justified with reference to Clause (4) of Article 16 of the Constitution inasmuch as before giving the said directions, the Central Government had not formed the requisite satisfaction that the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are not adequately represented in the services under the Corporation. The learned Judge has quashed the directions only on the first ground. He did not go into the question whether the said directions are warranted by Clause (4) of Article 16 of the Constitution. Civil Appeal No. 325 of 1981 is preferred by Air India while Civil Appeal No. 551 of 1981 is preferred by the employee of Air India belonging to Scheduled Castes. The Union of India is supporting them in these appeals. Writ Petitions (C) Nos. 145-148 of 1980 are filed under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutional validity of the very same directions issued by the Central Government.

2. Section 34(1) of the Air Corporations Act reads thus :

"34(1). The Central Government may give to either of the Corporations directions as to the exercise and performance by the Corporation of its functions, and the Corporation shall be bound to give effect to any such directions." The High Court, was of the view that the power under the said provision is confined to giving directions only with respect to "the exercise and performance by the Corporation of its functions" and that the expression "functions" in the said provision should be understood in the light of Section 7 of the Act which sets out the functions of the Corporations. The High Court opined that since regulating the conditions of service of its employees is not a matter specified in Section 7, the said directions are beyond the authority of the Central Government. In short, the High Court understood the functions of the Corporation as confined to those mentioned in Section 7 alone. We are unable to agree.

3. It is true that Section 7 does set out the "functions of the Corporation" but it would be erroneous to think that the Corporation has no other functions except those specified in Section 7. The Air Corporations Act speaks of the functions, duties and powers of the Corporation but as we shall demonstrate presently, powers and functions are used as interchangeable expressions. Section 45 empowers the Corporation to make regulations not inconsistent with the Act or the rules made under Section 44 for the administration of the affairs of the Corporation and for carrying out its functions. Sub-section (2) of Section 45 specifies the matters with respect to which regulations can be made under the said section. Sub-section (2), insofar as it is relevant, reads thus:

"45(2). In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, any such regulations may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:-

(b) the terms and conditions of service of officers and other employees of the Corporation other than the managing director and officers of any other categories referred to in Section 44".

4. Regulating the service condit