Constitutional Law

Air India v. Nergesh Meerza

AIR 1981 SC 1829; (1981) 4 SCC 335

Citation: AIR 1981 SC 1829; (1981) 4 SCC 335
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date: 28 August 1981
Bench: S. Murtaza Fazal Ali; A. Varadarajan; A.P. Sen

Facts

The petitions were filed by air hostesses employed by Air India and Indian Airlines.
Their service regulations imposed conditions different from those applicable to male cabin-crew employees, known as Assistant Flight Pursers or Flight Stewards.
Under the Air India regulations, an air hostess could be required to retire:
at thirty-five years of age;
upon marriage if it occurred within four years of service; or
upon her first pregnancy, whichever occurred earlier.
Her service could be extended annually up to forty-five years if:
she remained medically fit; and
the Managing Director chose to grant the extension.
Male cabin-crew members could ordinarily continue for a substantially longer period.
The air hostesses argued that the regulations:
discriminated on the ground of sex;
imposed degrading conditions relating to marriage and pregnancy;
gave uncontrolled discretion to management; and
denied equal employment opportunity.
The airlines maintained that male and female cabin-crew employees belonged to separate cadres with different recruitment and promotional systems.

Issue

Whether male cabin-crew employees and air hostesses were similarly situated for Article 14.
Whether retirement upon first pregnancy was arbitrary.
Whether the prohibition on marriage during the first four years of service was valid.
Whether retirement at thirty-five, with possible extension, was discriminatory.
Whether the Managing Director could possess absolute discretion over extensions.

Rule

Article 14 permits reasonable classification but prohibits arbitrary and hostile discrimination.
Separate service cadres may receive different conditions where their recruitment, seniority, promotion and functions are materially distinct.
A service regulation is unconstitutional where it:
operates capriciously;
imposes an unreasonable condition unrelated to employment; or
gives an authority unguided power to treat similarly situated employees differently.
Pregnancy-based service penalties must satisfy equality and cannot rest upon degrading assumptions regarding women.
Statutory regulations are subject to direct constitutional review.

Application

The Court accepted the corporations’ argument that air hostesses and male cabin-crew members had historically been recruited into separate cadres.
They had:
separate seniority;
distinct promotional channels;
different recruitment conditions; and
separate service arrangements.
The Court therefore declined to treat every difference between the two cadres as direct sex discrimination.
It upheld the condition barring marriage during the first four years of service.
The Court reasoned that the initial period permitted the corporation to recover training costs and maintain workforce stability.
The most serious defect was the requirement of retirement upon first pregnancy.
Pregnancy was a natural consequence of marriage and maternity.
Terminating employment for that reason was found manifestly arbitrary, unfair and inconsistent with civilised constitutional values.
The Court also rejected the Managing Director’s uncontrolled power to grant or refuse annual extensions after thirty-five.
The regulations contained:
no objective criteria;
no requirement to give reasons;
no appeal; and
no safeguard against unequal treatment.
The Court read the retirement provisions so that a medically fit air hostess could ordinarily continue up to the maximum extension age.
It did not invalidate the distinction between the retirement ages of air hostesses and the separate male cadre.
Some of the Court’s reasoning—particularly its approval of the marriage restriction and acceptance of separate sex-based cadres—reflects the equality approach of that period and has been limited by later anti-stereotyping decisions.

Conclusion

The condition requiring retirement on first pregnancy was struck down as arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
The portion giving the Managing Director an uncontrolled option to grant extensions was also struck down.
A medically fit air hostess became entitled to the yearly extensions contemplated by the regulations rather than depending on absolute managerial discretion.
The restriction on marriage during the first four years of service was upheld.