AIR INDJA ETC. ETC. versus NERGESH MEERZA & ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1982] 1 S.C.R. 438 · Decided: 28-08-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 8 judgment(s) · cites 12 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
438 
AIR INDJA ETC. ETC. 
v. 
NERGESH MEERZA & ORS. ETC. ETC. 
August 28, 1981 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, A. VARADARAJAN AND 
AMARENDRA NATH SEN, JJ.J 
Constitution of India 1950, Articles 14 and 16, Air India Employees Service 
Regulations, Regulations 46 and 47, Indian Airline Service Regulation, Regulation 
12. 
Different conditions of service of Air Hostesses employed by Air India in India 
and United Kingdom-Validity of. 
Conditions of service-Discrimination-Determination Of question. 
Retirement of Air Hostesses in the event of marriage taking place within 
four years of service-Whether unreasonable or arbitrary. 
Retirement of Air Hostess-Provision in service rule, or on first pregnancy 
whichever occurs earlier-Whether unconstitutional. 
Retirement age of Air Hostess-Fixation of at 45 instead of .58-Whether in-
valid. 
Air Hostess-Extension of service-Option conferred on Managing Director-· 
Whether exces:,fre delegation of power. 
Air India Corporations Act 1953, S. 3-Air India International and Indian 
Air Lines-Whether separate and distinct entities. 
Indian Evidence Act 1872, S. 115-Estoppel against law-~Vhether permis-
sible. 
By virtue of section 3 of the Air Corporation Act, 1953 the Central 
Government created two corporations known as Air India International and 
Indian Air Lines. A.I. operating international flights and the I.A.C. operating 
domestic flights within the country. 
Air Hostessess employed by Air India were governed by Regulations 46 
and 47 of Air India Employees Service Regulations and the Air Hostessess 
employed by l.A.C. were governed by the Indian Airlines Service, Regulation 
No.12. 
.---
AIR INDIA V. NERGESH MEERZA 
439 
A.H. under A.I. was retiied f1om service in the following contingencies : 
(a) On attaining the age of 35 years; 
(b) On marriage if it took place within four years of the service; and 
(c) on first pregnancy. 
The age of retirement of AH could be extended upto ten years by grant· 
ing yearly extensions at the option of the Managing Director. If the Managing 
Director chose to exercise his discretion under Regulation 47 an AH could retire 
at the age of 45 years. 
A.H. under I.A.C. i •. was governed by similar service conditions except that 
the age of retirement of permanent AHs could be ex.tendP;d upto 40 years. 
In their transferred case and writ petitions, it was contended on behalf of 
the A.H. that the Air Hostess employed by one corporation or the other from 
the same class of service as the AFPs and other 1nembers of the cabin crew, per-
forming identical or similar duties and hence any discrimination made between 
these two employees who are similarly circumstanced was clearly violative of 
Art. 14, (2) There was an inter sc discrimination between the AHs posted in 
the United Kingdom and those serving in the other Air India flights (3) the 
AHs have been particularly selecte:l for hostile descrimioation by the Corpora-
tion mainly on the ground of sex or disabilities arising from sex and, therefore, 
the regulations amount to a clear infraction of the provisions of Art. 15(1) and 
Art. 16(4). The termination of the services of AHs on the ground of pregnancy 
or marriage within four years is manifestly unreasonable wholly arbitrary and 
violative of Art. 14 (5). (6) Apart from discrimination regarding the age of 
retirement, AHs have been completely deprived of pron1otional opportunities 
available to the male members of th.; cabin crew. 
The Management contested the petitions by contending: (I) Having 
regard to the nature of job functions, the mode of recruitment of AHs, their 
qualifications, their promotional avenues and the circumstances in which they 
retire, AHs fall within a category separate from the class to which the pursers 
belong and there can be no question of discrimination or contravention of Art. 14 
which would apply if there is discrimination between the members of the same 
class inter se. (2) The recruitment of the AHs is actually sex based recruitment 
made not on the ground of sex alone but sway.::d by a lot of other considerations 
and hence Art. 15(2) of the Constitution is not attracted. (3) Regulation 46 of the 
A.I. Regulations and the IAC Regulation 12 have been upheld by the Khosla 
and Mahesh Awards. They have statutory force and unless they are \'per se 
arbitrary or discriminatory the Court ought not to interfere with them particularly 
when those two Awards are binding on the parties. (4) Having re
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.