Supreme Court

28.08.1981

Air India v. Nergesh Meerza and Ors.

MANU/SC/0688/1981

Taking the discrimination out with the guesswork

Courts nowadays usually work off a simple formula when faced with differing terms and conditions for appointment and retirement of men and women for the same post: if it discriminates - strike it down; if it it’s unavoidable - be very reasonable. And it has become all the more easier for courts to go down this path, what with India now participatory to many international treatises and covenants for non-discrimination on the basis of gender. In 1981 the Supreme Court had opportunity to deal with Air India’s (and Indian Airline’s) retirement policies towards its air hostesses with none of that assistance. Regulation 46(1)(c) of the Air India Employees Service Regulations was contested for forcing Air Hostesses to retire at the age of 35, and earlier still if they were to get married or pregnant. ‘Local’ and ‘economic’ factors, it justified, necessitated measures that kept retirement ages low. But, the airline’s assumption that after childbirth, or after marriage, a woman would leave the job were “neither logical nr convincing”. Both instances were air hostesses’ personal matters “and the Corporation has nothing to do with the same”. Also snatched was authority under Regulation 47 to extend, on an annual and individual basis, the service of air hostesses beyond the standard retirement age. After all, as the Court put it, “termination of the services of an air hostess under such circumstances is not only a callous and cruel act but an open insult to Indian womanhood the most sacrosanct and cherished institution.”

Relevant

Kathi Ratting Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra MANU/SC/0041/1952
The General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari MANU/SC/0388/1961
Miss C.B. Muthamma v. U.O.I, and Ors. MANU/SC/0580/1979

Tags : Air india gender discrimination retirement air hostess

Share :