Legal Method: Case Study- Air India vs. Nargesh Meerza

 This article is written by Amisha Gupta pursuing B.A.LL.B from George School of Law (Calcutta University).

Air India vs. Nargesh Meerza

[AIR 1981 SC 1829:(1981)4 SCC 335]

S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, A. Varadarajan and A.N. Sen, JJ

https://depositphotos.com/74482903/stock-illustration-cabin-crew.html

Brief facts of the case:

In this case, the Air Hostess of the Air India International Corporation had approached the Supreme Court against discriminatory service conditions in the regulation of Air India. The Regulation 46 provided that:

•  An Air Hostess could not get married before completion of 4 years of service. 
• Usually and Air Hostess was recruited at the age of 19 years and the four years but are against marriage means that an air hostess could not get married until she is the age of 23 years.
• If she married earlier, she had to resign and if after 23 years she got married, she could continue as a married woman.
• She had to resign on becoming pregnant. 
• If an Air Hostess survived both these filters, she continued to serve until she reached the age of 35 years. 

Under regulation 47 the managing Director at the discretion to extend the age of retirement by one year at a time beyond the age of retirement after the age of 45 years if an Air Hostess was found medically fit. 

Issue of the case:

1. Whether Air Hostesses and Assistant Flight Pursers in Air India or Flight Stewards in Indian Airlines Corporation form separate categories though both are members of the same crew.
2. Whether differential treatment meted out to Air Hostesses would attract the equality clause of the Constitution.
3. Whether the restriction on marriage of Air Hostesses within the first four years of marriage is unreasonable and arbitrary.
4. Whether the termination of services of Air Hostesses on first pregnancy is unreasonable and arbitrary.
5. Whether the procedure of extension of the age of retirement of an Air Hostess by the Managing Director is violative of Article 14.

Observations of the court: 

In considering the fundamental right of equality of opportunity a technical approach should not be made. Article 14 forbids hostile discrimination but not reasonable classification. But where the class or categories of service are essentially different in purport and spirit, e.g., where different scales of pay, service terms, leave, etc. are introduced in different or dissimilar posts, Article 14 cannot be attracted.

Judgement:

The Supreme Court held that:

1. Regarding the first issue, the court held that, Air Hostesses though members of the cabin crew are an entirely separate class governed by different set of rules, regulations and conditions of service.
2. Regarding the second issue, the court held that the Air Hostesses forms a separate category of circumstances, do not violate Article 14 of the Constitution on the ground of discrimination.
3. Regarding the third issued the court held that so far the restriction on marriage within first four years of service is concerned. According to the Air India Regulations an Air Hostess starts her career between the age of 19-26 years. The regulation permits an Air Hostess to marry at the age of 23 if she has joined the service at the age of 19 which is biology standard a very sound and salutary provision. Thus provision do not suffer the unreasonableness or arbitrariness.
4. Regarding the 4th issue, the court held that the according to which the service of Air Hostesses would stand terminated on first pregnancy is not only unreasonable and arbitrary but an open in search to Indian womanhood. And contains the quality of unfairness and exhibits make a despotism and is therefore, clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
5. Regarding the 5th issue, the court further held that the provision of extension of service of the Air Hostesses as 'at the option' of the Managing Director (Regulation 47). It confers a discretionary power without laying down any guidelines all principles, it may be exercise in favour of one Air Hostess and not in favour of other and is thus discriminatory. Thus it was violative of Article 14 as it suffered from the vice of excessive delegation of powers. 

___________________________________________________

References:

1. Babu Sarkar's - Legal Method & Legal Research Methodology, Marketed by : N.M. Roychowdhury Co., Published by Manash Dutta: Moon Law Agency, First edition June, 2014 , Reprint 2018.

2. Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari - Legal Method, Published by Central Law Home, 3rd reprint 2017.