Air India v. Nargesh Meerza AIR 1981 SC 1829

AIR INDIA V. NARGESH MEERZA

ISSUE:

Whether regulations mandating termination of employment upon pregnancy or imposing differential retirement ages constitute arbitrary or discriminatory treatment, thereby violating constitutional principles of equality?
Whether restrictions on personal choices, such as marriage within a specified period, amount to an unreasonable encroachment on individual rights or are justified by legitimate objectives?

RULE:

A regulation or policy must not result in arbitrary or unreasonable treatment; classifications must be based on intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the objective sought to be achieved, and restrictions on rights must be proportionate and serve a legitimate public purpose.

FACTS:

The case arose from a challenge to the discriminatory service conditions imposed on Air Hostesses (AHs) employed by Air India (AI) and Indian Airlines Corporation (IAC) under their respective regulations.
Air Hostesses were required to retire at the age of 35 or upon their first pregnancy, whichever occurred earlier, with additional provisions for retirement if they married within four years of service.
The regulations allowed discretionary annual extensions of service up to the age of 45, subject to medical fitness and the Managing Director’s approval. Male cabin crew members, by contrast, enjoyed a retirement age of 58 and had access to broader promotional opportunities.
The AHs alleged that these provisions were discriminatory, arbitrary, and violative of their fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality before the law) and 16 (equal opportunity in public employment) of the Indian Constitution. They further argued that the regulations were based on gender bias and perpetuated stereotypes about women’s roles.
The management justified the regulations on the grounds of “practical considerations” such as operational efficiency, customer relations, and the nature of the AHs’ duties, which were said to demand youth, fitness, and “presentation.”
The regulations had been upheld previously in the Justice Khosla (1965) and Justice Mahesh Chandra (1972) awards, which emphasized the perceived need for AHs to maintain a “young and attractive” profile for their roles.
The petition challenging the constitutional validity of the service regulations was first filed in the Bombay High Court by Air Hostess Nergesh Meerza and others.
Air India sought the transfer of the case to the Supreme Court under Article 139A(1) of the Constitution, arguing that identical issues were pending before the apex court in related petitions filed by AHs employed by Indian Airlines.
The Supreme Court, by its order dated January 21, 1981, allowed the transfer and consolidated all matters for joint adjudication.

HELD:

The Supreme Court held that the impugned regulations were partially unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 due to their arbitrariness and discriminatory nature.
The provision mandating termination of service upon the first pregnancy was struck down. The Court emphasized that this provision was unreasonable, unfair, and violated human dignity, compelling AHs to make unnatural sacrifices and interfering with their personal lives.
The regulation prohibiting marriage within four years of service was upheld as valid. The Court found it to be a reasonable restriction aimed at ensuring stability and continuity in employment during the initial years of service.
The Court upheld the retirement age of 35 for AHs, noting that AHs formed a separate class from male cabin crew due to differences in recruitment, job expectations, and service conditions.
However, it invalidated the discretionary extension of service by the Managing Director, holding that it suffered from the vice of excessive delegation of power.
The Court recognized that while AHs and male cabin crew performed similar functions, reasonable classification based on differences in duties, qualifications, and conditions of employment was permissible under Articles 14 and 15.
The judgment also observed that the regulations reflected societal biases and stereotypes regarding women, but reforming such biases required gradual changes in policy and practice.
The Court directed Air India to amend the regulations to align with constitutional principles, ensuring fairness and equality for AHs while balancing operational needs.