Miss Lena Khan. Vs. Union of India and Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Writ Petition No. 231 of 1987.
Petitioner: Miss Lena Khan.
Respondent: Union of India and Ors.
Apeal: Civil Writ Petition No. 231 of 1987.
Judges: V. KHALID & G.L.OZA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 30, 1987
Head Note:
SERVICE
Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 14 and 15 – Retirement age – Discrimination by Air India between Air Hostesses of Indian origin and of foreign origin – Air India phasing out Air Hostesses recruited outside and restoring uniformity.
Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 14 and 15 – Retirement age – Discrimination by Air India between Air Hostesses of Indian origin and of foreign origin – Air India phasing out Air Hostesses recruited outside and restoring uniformity.
Cases Reffered:
Air India v. Nargesh Meerza, (1982) 1 SCR 438.
JUDGEMENT:
KHALID, J.:
1. In this writ petition, filed by an Air India employee, who at the relevant time was Deputy Chief Air Hostess, notice was taken for the respondents when the matter came up for admission. We directed the respondents to file their Counter Affidavit. Accordingly Counter Affidavit has been filed. The Petitioner has filed her Rejoinder Affidavit also. Heard the learned counsel on both sides at some length.
2. Under the existing rules, namely Regulation 46(1)(c) of the Service Regulation the petitioner was to retire on 28-2-1987 and in fact she retired on that date. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the letter sent to her retiring her on 28-2-1987, to declare Regulation 46(1)(c) ultra vires, to direct reconsidera-tion of the decision in Air India v. Nargesh Meerza, 1982 (1) SCR 438 and to declare that the petitioner will retire only on her attaining the age of 58 years.
3. Identical questions were raised before this Court in a few writ petitions earlier by some other employees of Air India and they were considered at length by a bench of three Judges in Air India v. Nargesh Meerza and were considered in favour of Air India. We are bound by this decision. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this decision needs reconsideration and made a fervent appeal to us to refer the matter for that purpose, We do not feel persuaded to accept this request.
4. The main thrust of the submissions by the petitioner’s counsel is based on Article 14 and Article 15 of the Constitution of India, in that Air India discriminates between the Air Host-esses and the officers like the petitioner of Indian origin and of foreign origin who are employees of Air India. The contention is that while the employees of Indian origin have to retire at 35 years with extension till 45, those of foreign origin can go beyond 45 years. This contention also was considered by this Court in the decision referred above.
5. The case that Air Hostess recruited outside India can be in the employment of Air India beyond 45 years is met in the Counter Affidavit in the following paragraph:
“……..Therefore, I submit that so far as Air India is concerned, it has not fixed any higher retirement age for Air Hostesses who are recruited outside India. In U.K. there are only six Air Hostesses and they are also being phased out. The Senior most Air Hostess in U.K. in terms of age is 41 years old. It is further pertinent to note that there are only six Air Hostesses presently employed in U.K. These Air Hostesses belong to different nationalities and speak different European languages with a view to dealing with passengers conversant only with these languages. I say that Air India has been en- couraging its Indian Air Hostesses to learn European languages. In view of this position Air India is in the process of phasing out the European Air Hostesses employed in U.K. It is also pertinent to note that Air India has appointed a few Air Host-esses in Japan. These Air Hostesses were also appointed for the same reason i.e. their knowledge of the Japanese language. The Air Hostesses employed in Japan would also retire upon reaching the normal age of retirement applicable to Indian Air Hostess-es. It say that the service conditions and terms of appointment of the Air Hostesses appointed abroad are different than the service conditions of Air Hostesses appointed in India. It is of atmost importance to note that no Air Hostess appointed is promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Air Hostess, Additional Chief Air Hostess or Chief Air Hostess. These promotional avenues are available only to the Air Hostesses appointed in India…….”
6. From the above extract we find that Air India’s policy now is to phase out Air Hostesses recruited outside India and restore uniformity in their retirement age. In U.K., there are only six Air Hostesses, the senior-most among whom is only aged 41. The provisions of Sex Discrimination Act, 1975 applicable to United Kingdom was brought to our notice. Part II deals with discrimina-tion in the employment field. Section 6(1) (b) and Section 6(2) make discrimination against a woman in the terms of service, promotion opportunities and termination unlawful. But Section 6(4) protects provisions which relate to death and retirement from the vice of the above sections. We refer this only to reas-sure ourselves that it would be possible for Air India to phase out U.K. incumbents when they attain the age of 45. Air Hostesses employed in Japan would also retire upon reaching the normal age of retirement applicable to Indian Air Hostesses. It is useful to note that Air Hostesses who are recruited outside India are not entitled to benefits of promotion to which Indian Air Hostesses are entitled. We are of the view that this should satisfy the petitioner.
7. The case that the petitioner is not an Air Hostess, but belongs to a separate class can also not be accepted. This case did not find favour with this Court in the above decision either. The duties and functions of Deputy Chief Air Hostess includes operation service as a regular line Air Hostess and she will be required to perform the same functions as that of other Air Hostesses. The writ petition thus is devoid of any merit and hence is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
1. In this writ petition, filed by an Air India employee, who at the relevant time was Deputy Chief Air Hostess, notice was taken for the respondents when the matter came up for admission. We directed the respondents to file their Counter Affidavit. Accordingly Counter Affidavit has been filed. The Petitioner has filed her Rejoinder Affidavit also. Heard the learned counsel on both sides at some length.
2. Under the existing rules, namely Regulation 46(1)(c) of the Service Regulation the petitioner was to retire on 28-2-1987 and in fact she retired on that date. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the letter sent to her retiring her on 28-2-1987, to declare Regulation 46(1)(c) ultra vires, to direct reconsidera-tion of the decision in Air India v. Nargesh Meerza, 1982 (1) SCR 438 and to declare that the petitioner will retire only on her attaining the age of 58 years.
3. Identical questions were raised before this Court in a few writ petitions earlier by some other employees of Air India and they were considered at length by a bench of three Judges in Air India v. Nargesh Meerza and were considered in favour of Air India. We are bound by this decision. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this decision needs reconsideration and made a fervent appeal to us to refer the matter for that purpose, We do not feel persuaded to accept this request.
4. The main thrust of the submissions by the petitioner’s counsel is based on Article 14 and Article 15 of the Constitution of India, in that Air India discriminates between the Air Host-esses and the officers like the petitioner of Indian origin and of foreign origin who are employees of Air India. The contention is that while the employees of Indian origin have to retire at 35 years with extension till 45, those of foreign origin can go beyond 45 years. This contention also was considered by this Court in the decision referred above.
5. The case that Air Hostess recruited outside India can be in the employment of Air India beyond 45 years is met in the Counter Affidavit in the following paragraph:
“……..Therefore, I submit that so far as Air India is concerned, it has not fixed any higher retirement age for Air Hostesses who are recruited outside India. In U.K. there are only six Air Hostesses and they are also being phased out. The Senior most Air Hostess in U.K. in terms of age is 41 years old. It is further pertinent to note that there are only six Air Hostesses presently employed in U.K. These Air Hostesses belong to different nationalities and speak different European languages with a view to dealing with passengers conversant only with these languages. I say that Air India has been en- couraging its Indian Air Hostesses to learn European languages. In view of this position Air India is in the process of phasing out the European Air Hostesses employed in U.K. It is also pertinent to note that Air India has appointed a few Air Host-esses in Japan. These Air Hostesses were also appointed for the same reason i.e. their knowledge of the Japanese language. The Air Hostesses employed in Japan would also retire upon reaching the normal age of retirement applicable to Indian Air Hostess-es. It say that the service conditions and terms of appointment of the Air Hostesses appointed abroad are different than the service conditions of Air Hostesses appointed in India. It is of atmost importance to note that no Air Hostess appointed is promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Air Hostess, Additional Chief Air Hostess or Chief Air Hostess. These promotional avenues are available only to the Air Hostesses appointed in India…….”
6. From the above extract we find that Air India’s policy now is to phase out Air Hostesses recruited outside India and restore uniformity in their retirement age. In U.K., there are only six Air Hostesses, the senior-most among whom is only aged 41. The provisions of Sex Discrimination Act, 1975 applicable to United Kingdom was brought to our notice. Part II deals with discrimina-tion in the employment field. Section 6(1) (b) and Section 6(2) make discrimination against a woman in the terms of service, promotion opportunities and termination unlawful. But Section 6(4) protects provisions which relate to death and retirement from the vice of the above sections. We refer this only to reas-sure ourselves that it would be possible for Air India to phase out U.K. incumbents when they attain the age of 45. Air Hostesses employed in Japan would also retire upon reaching the normal age of retirement applicable to Indian Air Hostesses. It is useful to note that Air Hostesses who are recruited outside India are not entitled to benefits of promotion to which Indian Air Hostesses are entitled. We are of the view that this should satisfy the petitioner.
7. The case that the petitioner is not an Air Hostess, but belongs to a separate class can also not be accepted. This case did not find favour with this Court in the above decision either. The duties and functions of Deputy Chief Air Hostess includes operation service as a regular line Air Hostess and she will be required to perform the same functions as that of other Air Hostesses. The writ petition thus is devoid of any merit and hence is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
