Back
`SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, A. VARADARAJAN AND A.N. SEN,JJ.
Air India, Petitioner
Versus
Nargesh Meerza and others, Respondents.
Transferred Case No. 3 of 1981; W.P. Nos. 3045, 1107; 2458 of 1980, 1624 - 28 of 1981, D/-28-8-1981.
WITH
(1) Miss Kamal Chopra and others.
(2) Miss Prabha Rani and others.
(3) Miss F.P.L. Touche and
(4) Miss Menka Nathani and others, Petitioners
Versus
Indian Air Lines Corporation and another, Respondents.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Atul M. Setalvad, Sr. Advocate, Mr. R. K. Kulkarni, (M/s. D.B.Shroff, R. K. Kulkarni, P.H.Parekh & R.N. Karanjawala, Advocates with him), for Petitioners; Mr. F.S. Nariman, and T. R. Andhyarujina, Sr. Advocates, (M/S. S.K. Wadia, O.C. Mathur & Shri Narayan, Advocates with them) (for No.1), M/S. F. D. Damania, B.R. Agrawala, H.D. Patil and Miss Halida Khatun, Advocates (for No.3), M/s. B. Datta & R. P. Kapur, Advocates (for No.4), for Respondents.
In W.P.No. 3045/80 :-
Mr. D. P. Singh Sr. Advocate (Mr. L.R. Singh Advocate with him), for Petitioners; M/s. O.C. Mathur & Shri Narain, Advocates, for Respondent No.1.
In W.P. No. 1107/80:-
Mr. Niranjan Alva & Mr. Narayan Nettar, Advocates, for Petitioner, Mr. G. B. Pai, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. O.C. Mathur & Shri Narain, Advocates with him), for Respondent No.1; Mr. G.S. Vaidyanathan, Advocate, for Intervener.
In W.P.No. 2458 of 1980:
Mrs. Margaret Alva & Mr. L. R. Singh, Advocates, for Petitioner; Mr. P. R. Mridul, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. O.C. Mathur and Shri Narain, Advocates with him), for Respondent No.1.
In W.P. No. 1624-28 of 1981:-
Mr. S. Venkiteswaran & Mr. R. S. Sodhi, Advocates, for Petitioner; M/s. O. C. Mathur and Shri Narain, Advocates, for Respondent No.1.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The case involves a constitutional challenge to regulations governing the retirement age, termination, and service conditions of air hostesses employed by Air India and Indian Airlines Corporation, which are considered a single entity under the relevant legislation (!) (!) .
The two corporations were established as a single organization divided into units for operational purposes, and their service regulations, including those related to air hostesses, are interconnected and form part of a unified framework (!) .
The service conditions of air hostesses are different from those of other cabin crew members such as flight pursers and assistants, with distinctions in qualifications, salary grades, promotional avenues, and retirement benefits, indicating they constitute a separate category of employment (!) (!) (!) .
The regulations impose discriminatory conditions on air hostesses, such as retirement at a young age (35 years, extendable to 45), termination upon marriage within four years of service, and termination upon first pregnancy. These conditions are challenged as arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of constitutional rights to equality and non-discrimination (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The regulations regarding retirement and termination are justified by the employers on grounds such as the strenuous nature of the work, the need for attractiveness, and societal norms, but these justifications are contested as based on stereotypes and unreasonable assumptions (!) (!) .
The regulations governing air hostesses' service conditions are found to be discriminatory inter se, especially between those employed in different locations or under different regulations, and are often based on unfounded stereotypes about women’s physical and emotional capacities (!) (!) .
The regulations contain provisions that are ultra vires the constitutional principles of equality, as they confer uncanalized and unguided discretion on management authorities, leading to potential arbitrary decisions that violate the right to equality before the law (!) (!) .
The regulations regarding the age of retirement, particularly those fixing it at a young age (35 years, extendable to 45), are deemed unreasonable and arbitrary, lacking proper guidelines, and are thus unconstitutional (!) (!) .
The regulations' provisions related to termination on pregnancy are considered unconstitutional because they are based on stereotypes, lack medical justification, and violate the principles of individual assessment and dignity. The regulations also ignore circumstances such as pregnancy resulting from force or circumstances beyond control (!) (!) .
The regulations' restrictions on marriage within four years of service are upheld as reasonable, considering societal and operational needs, whereas the termination on first pregnancy is struck down as unreasonable and violative of constitutional rights (!) (!) .
The regulations' fixation of retirement age at 35 years, with extensions at the discretion of management, are found to be arbitrary and suffer from excessive delegation of powers. They are struck down as unconstitutional, with directions for amendments to be made to align with constitutional principles of reasonableness and fairness (!) (!) .
The service conditions of air hostesses are recognized as a separate class from other cabin crew, with distinct promotional avenues, service benefits, and retirement conditions, which are justified as reasonable classifications based on job functions and societal considerations (!) (!) .
The regulations' provisions regarding the treatment of air hostesses' service benefits, including free air passages and retirement benefits, are different from those of other categories, reflecting their separate classification and the nature of their employment (!) .
The regulations are also challenged on the grounds of excessive delegation of authority, lack of clear guidelines, and arbitrary exercise of discretion, which violate the principles of equality and fairness enshrined in the constitution (!) (!) .
The regulations concerning the age of retirement, termination, and service conditions are declared invalid where they are unreasonable, arbitrary, or based on stereotypes, with directions for suitable amendments to ensure compliance with constitutional mandates (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal principles derived from this case.
Judgment
FAZAL ALI, J. :- Transferred case No. 3 of 1981 and the writ petitions filed by the petitioners raise common constitutional and legal questions and we propose to decide all these cases by one common judgment. So far as Transferred Case No. 3/81 is concerned, it arises out of writ petition No. 1186/1980 filed by Nergesh Meerza & Ors. Respondent No. 1 ( Air India) moved this Court for transfer of the writ petition filed by the petitioners, Nergesh Meerza & Ors. In the Bombay High Court because the Constitutional validity of Regulation 46 (i) (c) of Air India Employees Service Regulations) (hereinafter referred to as A. I. Regulation) and other questions of law were involved. Another ground taken by the applicant-Air India in the transfer petition was that other writ petions filed by the Air Hostesses employed by the Indian Airlines Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "I. A. C.") which were pending hearing in this Court invalved almost identical reliefs. After hearing the transfer petition this Court by its Order dated 21-1-81 allowed the petition and directed that the transfer petition arising out of writ petition No. 1186/80 pending before the Bombay High Court be transferred to this Court. By a later Order dated 23-3-1981 this Court directed that the Transferred case may be heard along with other writ petitions. Hence, all these matters have been placed before us for hearing. For the purpose of brevity, the various petitionts, orders, rules, etc. shall be referred to as follows:-
(1) Air India as "A. I."
(2) Indian Airlines Corporation as "I. A. C."
(3) Statutory regulations made under the Air India Corporation Act of 1953 or the Indian Airlines Corporation Act of 1953 would be referred to as A I. Regulations and I. A. C. Regulations respectively.
(4) Nergesh Meerza & Ors as petitioners.
(5) Declaration by the Central, Government under Equal Remuneration Act as "Declaration" and Equal Remunration Act 1976 as 1976 Act.
(6) Air Corporation Act of 1953 as 1953 Act.
(7) Justice Khosla Award as Khosla Award and Justice Mahesh Chandra Award as Mahesh Award.
(8) Assistant Flight Pursers as AFPs.
(9) Air Hostess as A. H. and Air Hostesses as AHs.
(10) Air India Cabin Crew as A I. Crew and Indian Airlines Corporation Cabin Crew as IAC Crew.
(11) Flight Steward as "F, S"
2. Before dealing with the facts of the case and the central constitutional cantroversies and substantial points of law involved in these petitions, it may be necessary to give a brief survey of the history which led to the formation of the two Corporations. viz., A. I. and I. A. C.
3. By virtue of Section 3 of the 1953 Act, the Central Government by a notification published in the official Gazette created two Corporations known as Indian Airlines and Air India International. Section 3 (2) provided that each of the two Corporations would be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal subject to the provisions of the Act to acquire and hold property. Section 4 of the 1953 Act provides for the constitution of the Corporations and Section 5 deals with the conditions of service, of the Chairman and other Directors of the Corporations. Section 7 defines the various functions of the Corporations; Further details regarding the provisions of Section 7 would be dealt with later wherever necessary. Section 8 deals with the appointment of the officers and other employees of the Corporations. Section is 10 to 15 deal with finance accounts and audit. Section 34 defines the control which the Central Government may exercise over the performance by the corporation of its functions. The other provisions of the 1953 Act are not germane for the purpose of this case.
4. It is manifest therefore from a perusal of the various provisions of the 1953 Act that A. I. and I. A. C. were established as a single entity which was divided into two units in view of the duties that each Corporation had to perform. We have metioned this fact particularly because one of the contentions of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
