LexMISS LENA KHAN versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MISS LENA KHAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. MARCH 30, 1987 A [V. KHALID AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] B Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14 and 15-Retirement- Different age fvced for employees of Indian origin and foreign origin- Whether permissible. Constitution of India-Article 12-Air India-Whether falls C within the definition of" State"-An instrumentality or agency of State having operations outside India-For complying with the Municipal Law abroad-Whether could disregard Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. Constitution of India-Article 14--Air Hostesses and Deputy D Chief Air Hostess-Having regard to the nature of duties performed by them-Whether belong to the same class. U.K. Sex Discrimination Act, I975, s. 6(4)-To have the same age of retirement for the Air Hostesses recruited in U.K. as is provided for an Air Hostess recruited of Indian origin-Whether violative of the Act. The petitioner, who was employed as Deputy Chief Air Hostess in Air India, rded this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleg- ing that while the employees of Indian origin have to retire at 35 years with extension till 45, those of foreign origin can go beyond 45 years, which is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Con- stitution, Accordingly, prayer was made to quash the letter sent to her retiring her on 28.2.1987, to declare Regulation 46(l)(c) of the Service Regulations ultra vires, to direct reconsideration of the decision in Air India v. Nargesh Meerza, [1982] 1 SCR 438 and to declare that the petitioner will retire only on her attaining the age of 58 years. E F G In the counter-allidavit it was alleged that Air-India has not fixed any higher retirement age for Air-Hostesses who are recruited outside India, that Air India has appointed a few Air Hostesses abroad who belong to different nationalities and speak different European languages with a view to deal with passengers conversant only with H 727 728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R. A these languages, that Air India has been encouraging its Indian Air ~ Hostesses to learn European languages and in view of this position Air India is in the process of phasing out Air Hostesses of foreign origin, that service conditions and terms of appointment of the Air Hostesses appointed abroad are different than the service conditions of Air Hostesses appointed in India and that no Air Hostess of foreign origin is B promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Air Hostess, Additional Chief Air Hostess or Chief Air Hostess. These promotional avenues are available only to the Air Hostesses appointed in India. c Dismissing the Petition, '~ HELD: (Per Khalid, J) I. Identical questions were raised and considered at length by this Court in Air India v. Nargesh Meerza (supra) and that decision is !Jinding. [730A-B] D 2. Air India's policy now is to phase out Air Hostesses rl!cruited outside India and restore uniformity in their retirement age. [731B-C] 3. The petitioner is an Air Hostess and does not belong to a sepa- rate class. The duties and functions of Deputy Chief Air Hostess inc- ~ lodes operation service as a regular line Air Hostess and she will be re- E quired to perform the same functions as that of other Air Hostesses. [731F) F G 4. Air Hostesses who are recruited outside India are not entitled to the benefits of promotion to which India Air Hostesses are entitled. -~ - This should satisfy the petitioner in the instant case. [731E] ~ (Per Oza, J.) '· I. Air India being a Corporation is for all purposes State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and it cannot follow a foreign Corporation in treating Indians differently and dis- criminate against them. [732B-C) Air India etc. etc. v. Nargesh Meerza & Others etc. etc., [1982] 1 SCR 438, referred to. not disregard Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. An Indian citizen in 2. Air India in order to avoid committing an offence abroad can- ~ H such a situation sh11uld prefer to walk off from a State where he may - LENA KHAN v. UNION [KHALID ,J.] 729 have to flout Indian Constitution to save himself from committing of an A offence. Air India should abide hy the requirements of Article 14 rather than anything else. [732F ·GI 3. It has been conceded that in view of s. 6(4) of the United Kingdom Sex Discrimination Act, 1975 it will not he a contravention of that law to have the same age of retirement for an Air Hostes
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.