AIR INDIA AND ORS. ETC. versus B.R. AGE AND ORS ETC.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 196 · Decided: 10-10-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
AIR INDJA AND ORS. ETC. 
v. 
B.R. AGE AND ORS ETC. 
OCTOBER 10, 1995 
B 
(S.C. AGARWAL AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.J 
Air Cmporations Act, 1953: Seuions 7( 1), (2), 15, 15-A, 34( 1) and 45. 
Central Govenunent-Power to give directions-Scope and extent 
C of-Directions for rcsetVation in se11:ice.~· in Air Indit~Held covered under 
section 34( 1 )-Held such directions pe11ain to exercise and pe1fonna11ce of 
fu11ctio11s by the Co1poration-Fu11ctio11s of Cmporation held not confi11ed to 
those specified in section 7-Expressio11 /H1we1:<' a11d 'f1111ctio11s' held illler-
changeable. 
D 
In exercise of the power conferred by Section 34(1) of the Air 
Corporations Act, 1953 the Central Government issued directions to the 
appellant-Air Corporation to provide reservations for Scheduled castes 
and Scheduled Tribes in the services under the Corporation. The respon-
dents challenged the vires of these directi<ms before the High Court of 
E 
Bombay which held that the power under Section 34(1) was 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 provisions should be understood in the light of Section 7 of the Act 
which sets out the functions of the Corporation; since regulating the 
F 
conditions of' service of its employees was not a matter specified in Section 
7, the impugned directions were not within the ambit of Section 34(1) and 
thus beyond the authority of the Central Government. Air India as well as 
its employees belonging to Scheduled Castes preferred appeals before this 
Court. 
G 
Writ petitions were also filed under Article 32 of the Constitution 
challenging the directions issued by the Central Govt. 
Allowing the appeals and setting aside the judgment of the High 
Court, and dismissing the writ petitions filed under Article 32, this Court 
H 
HELD : 1. The directions issued by the Central Government ue 
196 
' 
AIR INDIA v. B.R. AGE 
197 
within the four corners of Section 34(1) of the Air Corporations Act and, A 
therefore, valid and effective. [201-C] 
2. It is true that Section 7 does not set out the functions of the 
Corporation but it would he erroneous to think that the Corporation has 
no other functions except those specified in Section 7. The Air Corporation 
Act speaks of the functions, duties and powers of the Corporation but 
powers and functions are used as interchangeable expressions. Regulating 
the service conditions of its employees is referred to as a power in Section 
45, but one may ask, is it not its tunction as well. The very language 
employed in Section 7 establishes t.hat both the expressions were used by 
B 
the Parliament as interchangeable concepts. Thus, when sub-section (2) 
C 
speaks of powers conferred by sub-section (I), it is obviously speaking of 
the functions of the Corporation but referring to them as "powers". It 
indeed seeks to confer some more po,vers upon the corporation viz., those 
specified in clauses (a) to (I), which are indeed an elaboration and par-
ticularisation of the functions referred to in sub-section (1). The language 
employed in sub-section (2) of Section 7 thus demolishes the distinction D 
sought to be drawn between powers and functions of the Corporation. 
Therefore, the distinction sought to be drawn between the powers and 
functions is unsustainable and unreal. A reference to certain other 
provisions of the Act including Sections 15 and 15'.A goes indeed to 
re-inforce this view. It follows that the directions in question do pertain to 
E 
the exercise and performance by the Corporation of its functions. 
[199-C, G, 200-E-G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal 
No. 325 of 1981. 
With 
Civil Appeal No. 551 of 1981. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.11.80 of the Bombay High 
F 
Court in W.P. No. 1279 of 1978. 
G 
And 
Writ Petition (C) Nos. 145-48 of 1980. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
H 
A 
B 
c 
198 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
K.N. Bhat, Narain B. Shetyc, U.A. Rana, RajivTayagi, Anand Prasad 
for Gagrate & Co., P.H. Parekh, Ms. Manish Pradeep, C.V. Francis, Lalit 
Bhasin, Ms. Mina Gupta~ Ms. Kiran, Yincet Kumar, C.S. Srinivasa Rao and 
Ms. A Subhashini, for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Civil Appeal Nos. 325 and 551of1981 are 
preferred against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay 
Higb Court a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.