Supreme court of India
Case number: 313 of 1980
Petitioner
AIR India
Respondent
Nargesh Meerza & Ors
Bench
Fazalali, Syed Murtaza
Varadarajan, A. (j)
Sen, A.P. (J)
Act :
Article 14 of Indian Constitution, Article 15 of Indian Constitution, Article 16 of Indian Constitution, Air India Employees Services Regulation, Regulation 46 and 47, Indian Airline Service Regulation, Regulation 12.
INTRODUCTION
The case of Air India v. Nargesh Meerza is a landmark judgement in Indian legal history that challenged discriminatory workplace policies based on gender norms. Filed in year 1981 by Nargesh Meerza, an Air Hostess with Air India Airlines, the case contested the airlines regulations that forced female flight attendant to resign upon marriage, pregnancy, or reaching the age of 35. These regulations did not apply to male flight attendants.
The petitioners argued that these policies violated their fundamental rights under Article 14, 15, and 16 of the Indian Constitution, which ensure equality before the law, prohibit discrimination, and guarantee equality in public employment . The Supreme Courts ruling highlighted the importance of addressing gender discrimination based on the nature of the job.
This case paved the way for defining the constitution basis for gender equality in India and had significant impact on workplace equality.
FACTS
Air India v. Negesh Meerza a landmark case in Indian legal history is a case about gender discrimination at workplace, where Female flight attendant are not getting equal opportunity as male flight attendant because of same workplace policies based on gender norms.
Under Section 3 of the Air Corporation Act, 1953 the Central Government Created two corporations known as Air India International and Indian Airlines . Air India International Operating international flights and Indian Air Lines operating domestic flights within the country.
Air hostess employed by Air India were subject to regulations 46 and 47 of Air India Employees Service Regulations and Air hostess employed by Indian Air Lines were governed by Indian Airlines Service Regulation No. 12. these rule regulation says the allowed age for retirement age of 35, upon marriage within four years, or upon the first pregnancy. The retirement age could be extended up to 45 years at the discretion of the Managing Director. Male Flight Attendant (cabin crew) had a retirement age of 58 years, this shows in complete discrimination between male and female flight attendant.
ISSUE
The main issue of the case is the violation of Fundamental Rights, right to equality under Article 14 of Indian Constitution of the female flight attendant. The case was brought up by the group of Air Hostess against Air India and Indian Airlines.
- Constitutional validity : Whether Regulation 46 and 47 of the Air India Employees Service Regulations Violate Article 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India, It reaffirmed the importance of the fundamental rights to equality and non-discrimination enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
- Excessive Delegation : Whether the discretionary power granted under Regulation 47, allowing the Managing Director to extend the service of employees, constitute excessive delegation of authority and violation legal principles.
ARGUMENTS
The arguments in Air India v. Nargesh Meerza centered around the Constitutionality of Air India Service rule that mandate the resignation of female flight attendants upon marriage and pregnancy.
Petitioner Arguments in Air India v. Nargesh Meerza :
Discrimination: Meerza argued that these rule were discriminatory against women, violating Article 14, 15, and 16 of The Indian Constitution, which guarantee equality before law, prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex and ensure equality of opportunity in public employment.
Stereotypes: She contended that the rule were based on outdated gender stereotypes that confined women to the domestic sphere and limited their career opportunities.
Fundamental Rights: Meerza argued that the rule infringed upon her fundamental rights to equality, personal liberty, and the right to practices any profession.
Respondent Arguments in Air India v. Nargesh Meerza:
Operational Necessity: Air India argued that the rule were necessary for maintaining operational efficiency and passenger safety. They claimed that pregnancy could lead to unpredictable health issues and potential flight disruptions.
Uniformity: They argued that the rule applied uniformly to all female flight attendant and were not discriminatory.
Contractual obligations: Air India contended that Meerza had accepted terms of employment, including the services rule, when she joined the Airline.
JUDGEMENTS
The judgement in Air India v. Nargesh Meerza was delivered by The Supreme Court on 28 August, 1981. In the case of Air India v. Nargesh Meerza, the court issued a partial grant of petitions by articulating the following determination:
The contested provisions were adjudged to exhibit clear arbitrariness.
Specifically, the clause within Regulation 47 that empowers the Managing Director to Unilaterally extend the tenure of an Air Hostess is rendered invalid. Air Hostess shall, in the absence of appropriate amendment aligning with Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, continue to face mandatory retirement at the age of 45 . The managing Director shall be compelled to grant automatic annual extensions for a decade, contingent upon the Air Hostesses medical fitness. This stipulation precludes any potential for discriminatory practice among different Air Hostess by the Managing Director.
The court also struck down the last part of Regulation 46 (i) (c), declaring unconstitutional and void and in violation of Article 14 of Indian Constitution.
The court observe that (AHs) and (AFPs) are two different group with different working conditions. The retirement benefits are also different. The statement from the central govt. on June 15 1979, indicate that there were no unfair practices based on gender regarding pay and working condition.
Article 15 (1) and 16 (2) of Constitution clearly stated that discrimination based only on gender is not allowed. The courts rejected the argument by AHs claiming that their retirement conditions are unfairly based on gender.
The court suggested, amending the rule to allow termination of an Air Hostess service on third pregnancy, provided two children are already alive, for health and family planning reasons. The court further concluded that regulation that impeded a women Right to have children are detestable and violate human values.
CONCLUSION
The case of Air India v. Nargesh Meerza was a significant victory on gender equality at a workplace. The case has left a huge impact on society about the discrimination faced by women at their workplace. In the landmark judgement supreme court marked that the Regulation 47 is violating the fundamental rights of Air Hostess and struck down Air India discriminatory service condition. The judgement the women rights and make sure that the women have right to pursue their career without facing any discrimination.
