Latest News
Back
Document:
Case Analysis Air India v Nargesh Mirza
PETITIONER: AIR INDIA.
RESPONDENT: NERGESH MEERZA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/08/1981
BENCH: FAZAL ALI, SYED MURTAZA VARADARAJAN, SEN
Facts: The case put forward a challenge on Regulations 46 and 47 of the Air India Employees Service Regulations. With the challenge being posited because the said regulation created a substantial degree of disparity among male Air Flight Pursers and female Air Hostesses and within the pedigree of Air Hostesses on several grounds such as promotional avenues, differential retirement ages, conditions about the termination of the Air hostesses services in cases of pregnancy or marriage (retirement age for them was 35 years as opposed to 58 for their “male counterparts” – according to Regulation 46). Furthermore, a more impending question was regarding the discretionary powers of the Managing Director who under Regulation 47 could increase the age of retirement as per his own interest. The petitioner contended that such a power bestowed is arbitrary.
Issues:
(i) Whether clauses 46 and 47 of Air India Employees Service Regulations are violative of Art. 14,15 and 16 of the Indian constitution and thus ultra vires in whole or part?
(ii) Whether discretionary powers as enumerated under Regulation 47 can be deemed as being excessive delegation provided to the managing director?
Judgment
The apex court after hearing arguments from both the parties ruled that the clauses regarding retirement and pregnancy are unconstitutional and thus ordered for them to be struck down with immediate effect. Furthermore, Regulation 47 of the Air India Employees Service Regulations also experienced a similar fate, for it was found that Regulation 47 suffered from the excessive delegation of powers without any reasonable guidelines to police the same.
The Supreme Court also recommended that the said pregnancy clause be amended wherein the criterion of retirement upon the birth of a third child should be added in place of the already existing clause, which is based on the reasoning of the principle of public health.
Critics:
Gender discrimination hinders the overall growth and development of women in modern-day society. There are already plenty of patriarchal restraints on a women’s desires for a stress-free life back home. Now, if we see the facts of the present case it says the retirement age of air hostesses was kept as 35 years, because of a wrongful assumption that women till that age look youthful and glamourous. And if we talk about pregnancy or marriage, the retirement for this is unjustified and violates the fundamental rights of women which are Article 14, 15, and 16 of the Indian constitution.
Now, the issue raised was whether the Regulations in the act were in violation of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Indian Constitution? Or can we say on that part of the regulation act that it is ultra vires?
And the second issue was whether the discretionary powers of the Managing director under Regulation 47 be deemed as an excessive delegation?
So, if we critically analyze the verdict by the Court it is clear that of course, the regulation clause was in violation of the fundamental rights of women under Article 14,15 and 16 of the Indian Constitution, thus orders them to be struck down. Also, because of the same reason the regulation 47 was also found to be under glitches as it provided immense arbitrary powers to the Managing Director, hence needed to be controlled. Lastly, we recognize that there is an immediate need to curb this evil of gender inequality to make all people avail their the rights granted to them under the constitution of India. Both men and women are equal and societies that follow this norm lead a peaceful life. Gender equality is also a human right and everyone reaps the benefit from this.
Document:
