By Akanksha Singh[1] In the Supreme Court of India NAME OF THE CASE Air India Etc. Etc vs Nergesh Meerza & Ors. Etc. Etc CITATION 1981 AIR 1829, 1982 SCR (1) 438 DATE OF JUDGMENT 28 August, 1981 APPELANT Air India Etc. Etc. RESPONDENT Nergesh Meerza & Ors. Etc. Etc. BENCH/JUDGE Fazalali, Syed Murtaza STATUTES/CONSTITUTION INVOLVED Constitution of India Air India Employees Service Regulations IMPORTANT SECTIONS/ARTICLES Constitution of India – Article 14, 15, 16 Air India Employees Service Regulations – Section 25 ABSTRACT Regulations 46 and 47 of the Air India Employees Service Regulations were challenged in the case. With the challenge based on the fact that the aforementioned legislation established a significant difference between male (referred to as Air Flight Pursers) and female (Air Hostesses). The Supreme Court heard the matter in the form of a writ petition. Previous versions of the lawsuit were brought before National Industrial Tribunals (the Khosla Tribunal in 1965 and the Mahesh Tribunal in 1972). INTRODUCTION Gender discrimination is one of the most heinous sins of most modern societies. However, there is global progress, and most cultures have transformed themselves to achieve modernity. However, there is still a flaw in people’s thoughts that allows them to discriminate on the basis of gender. Individuals have prejudices towards other people. They favour the in-group and have a skewed picture of the outgroup. People are reluctant to adopt this language of equality and impartiality since it is rooted in ancient times. Discrimination arises due to a variety of variables such as geographical disparities, cultural differences, gender, language differences, and so on. Gender discrimination is defined as uneven treatment of a person or group of people based on their gender or sexual orientation. Gender inequality or uneven treatment has long been a source of contention in Indian society. This occurs not just in the social world, but also in the business or any other formal organisation. Although many legislation have been enacted to combat this expanding threat, the crucial issue is execution. Raising awareness and disseminating knowledge on women’s rights may certainly help in the drive to create a gender-neutral society in which everyone is treated equally in all aspects, including the right to freedom and liberty. Now, gender disparity in the workplace is no different from societal inequality. This also treats people differently based on their gender or sex. As we can see, no arena exists for women in which she does not suffer. In one way or another, women is viewed as inferior to males and consequently discriminated against. Air India v. Nergesh Meerza & Ors is one such case demonstrating gender discrimination and injustice. FACT OF THE CASE So, from the outset, there were two corporations: Indian Airlines and Air India International. As a result, two corporations were formed: A.I., or Air India Cabin Crew, and IAC, or Indian Airlines Corporation Cabin Crew. The two corporations were part of the same organisation, which was established under the 1953 Act. In addition, the A.I. conflict was submitted to Justice Khosla in the Khosla Tribunal, while the disagreement between the I.A.C. and its workers was referred to Justice Mahesh Chandra in the Mahesh Tribunal. According to the circumstances, the appellant challenged the service regulation that obliged air hostesses to retire upon marriage, their first pregnancy, or the age of 35, whichever occurred first. The responses of the airline authorities underlined the importance of physical beauty, youth, glamour, and so on as vital criteria for in-flight service. Initially, the business decided that airhostesses would retire at the age of 50 with a choice of ground jobs. In comparison to male employees who were to retire at the age of 58, this was later challenged as a violation of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Indian Constitution, as well as certain clauses of the Equal Remuneration and Air Corporation Acts. The Bombay High Court issued an order based on the suggestions presented, laying out particular factors that are not gender discriminatory and stating that both male and female cadres would be given the choice of retiring at the age of 50 or 58. However, many employee groups, notably airhostesses, opposed the High Court’s decision, claiming that it would jeopardise their seniority and promotional opportunities, which are exclusively controlled by agreements. A writ petition was subsequently filed in the Honorable Supreme Court challenging regulations 46 and 47 of the Air India Employees Service Regulation. This was done in order to have these regulations overturned because they disproportionately affected men and women in terms of promotion, retirement age, and termination for reasons such as pregnancy or marriage. ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE COURT Do clauses 46 and 47 of the Air India Employees Service Regulations completely or partially violate the Indian Constitution’s Articles 14, 15, and 16? Can the managing director’s exercise of the discretionary powers listed in Regulation 47 be viewed as an undue transfer of authority? ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE APPELLATE ·       Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Air Hostess employed by one firm or another from the same class of service as the AFPs and other cabin crew members, performing equal or comparable responsibilities, and so any discrimination made between these two employees who are similarly situated was plainly in violation of Article 14. ·       In the instant matter, it is an admitted position that apart from women being discriminated against in terms of retirement age, AHs have been denied any promotional chances offered to male cabin crew personnel. ·       Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Corporation has specifically targeted the AHs for hostile discrimination, primarily on the basis of sex or limitations related to sex, and so the restrictions constitute a clear violation of Articles 15 and 16. (4) The termination of AHs services for pregnancy or marriage within four years is plainly unjustified, arbitrary, and in violation of Article 14. ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE RESPONDENT ·       Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that according to the nature of their jobs, the … Continue reading Air India Etc. Etc vs Nergesh Meerza & Ors. Etc. Etc