Calling the Situation Grim, the Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of Delays in NCLT Approvals  ||  Supreme Court: Admission of a Claim by a Resolution Professional is Not Debt Acknowledgment  ||  Supreme Court: Public Figures Must Exercise Caution as Their Words Have Consequences in Society  ||  SC: State Must Act as a Model Employer, Criticising the Union For Not Regularising ISRO Workers  ||  J&K&L High Court: Minor Minerals Have Major Environmental Impacts and Must be Regulated  ||  Del HC: Unexplained Money Received by Public Servant is Not Bribery Without Proof of Official Favour  ||  Del HC: There is No Absolute Bar on Granting Co-Convicts Parole/Furlough Together in Suitable Cases  ||  Bom HC: LARR Authority Can Examine Limitation Issues in Land Acquisition References under 2013 Act  ||  MP HC: Long-Serving Employees Cannot Be Denied Regularisation by Retrospective Statutory Amendments  ||  J&K&L HC: Routine Challenges to Lok Adalat Awards Defeat Their Purpose of Quick Dispute Resolution    

Air India v. Nergesh Meerza and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (28 Aug 1981)

Taking the discrimination out with the guesswork

MANU/SC/0688/1981

Service

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 :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved