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

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

Regulatory provisions requiring Air Hostesses to retire on first pregnancy are unconstitutional and violate Article 14 due to arbitrariness and lack of reasonable justification. Discretionary extension of retirement age by Managing Director without guidelines constitutes excessive delegation and is also unconstitutional. Air Hostesses form a separate class from male cabin crew based on service conditions; therefore, difference in retirement age is not discriminatory.

Parties
Petitioner: Air India; Respondents: Nergesh Meerza & Ors.; Respondent: Respondent No. 3; Respondent: Respondent No. 4; Petitioner: Writ Petitioners (W.P. 3045/80); Respondent: Respondent No. 1 (W.P. 3045/80); Petitioner: Writ Petitioner (W.P. 1107/80)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 August 1981
Procedural Posture
Transferred Case and Writ Petitions / Final Judgment
Outcome
Petitions partly allowed
Legal Topics
Equality Before Law, Service Regulations, Discrimination on Grounds of Sex, Conditions of Employment, Retirement Age, Delegation of Power
Constitutional Law Labour Law Administrative Law Equality Before Law Service Regulations Discrimination on Grounds of Sex Conditions of Employment Retirement Age +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Air India

Petitioner

Nergesh Meerza & Ors.

Respondents

Respondent No. 3

Respondent

Respondent No. 4

Respondent

Writ Petitioners (W.P. 3045/80)

Petitioner

Respondent No. 1 (W.P. 3045/80)

Respondent

Writ Petitioner (W.P. 1107/80)

Petitioner

Procedural Posture

Transferred Case and Writ Petitions / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service regulations for Air Hostesses including retirement on first pregnancy are constitutionally valid
  2. 2 Whether distinction between Air Hostesses and male cabin crew in retirement age and promotional avenues amounts to discrimination under Articles 14, 15, and 16
  3. 3 Whether discretionary extension of retirement age by Managing Director amounts to unconstitutional delegation

Ratio Decidendi

Regulatory provisions requiring Air Hostesses to retire on first pregnancy are unconstitutional and violate Article 14 due to arbitrariness and lack of reasonable justification. Discretionary extension of retirement age by Managing Director without guidelines constitutes excessive delegation and is also unconstitutional. Air Hostesses form a separate class from male cabin crew based on service conditions; therefore, difference in retirement age is not discriminatory.

Court Disposition

Petitions partly allowed

Orders

  • Striking down of Regulation 47 (Air India Employees Service Regulations) to the extent of discretionary extension of retirement age by Managing Director.
  • Striking down of provision requiring retirement on first pregnancy as unconstitutional and deleted from service regulations.