AIR INDIA v. NARGESH MEERZA , 1981, Unconstitutionality of clause regarding retirement and pregnancy

Advertisements

Spread the love

Post Views: 2,764

SUBJECT :

The judgment is based on gender justice and discrimination based on the biological features of women.

INTRODUCTION:

In today’s world discrimination based on gender is an offense in modern society. Although India has developed a lot still there exist some flaws in the system. People are reluctant to adopt the modern theory of equality and impartiality since it is rooted in ancient times. Discrimination occurs over various issues like gender, skin tone, language, cultural differences, economic conditions, etc. In simple words, we can say discrimination is the uneven treatment of a person or group of people based on various factors.

Gender inequality has long existed in Indian society. Various social welfare programs have been raised to educate people to create a gender-neutral society in which everyone is treated equally in all aspects. Gender disparity in the workplace is also a form of societal inequality.

Therefore, the SC made the case of Air India v. Nargesh Meerza one of the first landmark cases in the Indian equality jurisprudence concerning the issue of discrimination based on sex.

FACTS :

~The facts of the case are highly complex and exhaustive. The case involved two companies Air India and Indian Airlines

~ Regulations 46 and 47 of the Air India Employees Service Regulations were challenged in this mentioned case.

~ Many petitions were filed before the Bombay HC questioning the validity of regulations 46 and 47 of Air India Employee’s Service Regulations, stating it to be ultra vires of Articles 14,15,16 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

~ The Supreme Court transferred all the petitions from the Bombay HC to itself for a joint hearing under Article 139A.

~ The Supreme Court heard the matter in form of a writ petition.

ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE COURT :

~ Whether clauses 46 and 47 of the Air India Employees Service Regulations completely or partially violate the Indian Constitution’s Articles 14,15 and 16.

~ The use of discretionary powers listed in Regulation 47 used by the Managing directors be viewed as an undue transfer of authority.

ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE APPELLATE:

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that there was so much discrimination made between the male and female employees which is a violation of several Articles under the Indian Constitution.

In this instant matter, it is an admitted position that apart from being discriminated against in terms of the retirement age, AHs were denied and male cabin crew had more opportunities for promotions.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the corporation has targeted specifically the AHs for discrimination, on basis of sex or limitation related to sex, so there was a violation of Article 15 and Article 16. The termination of AHs services for pregnancy or marriage within the period of four years was unjustified, arbitrary, and a clear violation of Article 14.

ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE RESPONDENT :

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that based on the nature and conditions of their job, the hearing procedure, the qualifications needed, and other job conditions, AHs are in a class apart from pursers, so absolutely no question of discrimination or violations arises under Article 14.

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that since the hiring of the AHs is solely based on sex, Article 15(2) of the Indian Constitution is not applicable as it is based on several other factors.

RELATED PROVISIONS

Article 14 (2) of the Indian Constitution – Equality before the law
Article 15(1)[3] of the Indian Constitution -No discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex
Article 16(4) of the Indian Constitution – Equal opportunities in public employment
Regulation 46(5) Air India Employees Service Regulations

JUDGEMENT:

The apex court after hearing arguments from both parties realized that the clause regarding retirement and pregnancy are unconstitutional and therefore passed an order to strike them off immediately.

The Supreme Court further advises that the pregnancy provision is to be amended and the criteria regarding retirement on the birth of a third child replace the present language, which is based on grounds of public health.

The powers that were assigned to the Managing Director by Regulation 47 were leading to discriminatory behaviours’. Hence it was found that the powers of the Managing Directors are so wide that they violate Article 14 due to excessive delegation.

After revising various previous judgments Justice Fazal Ali issued an opinion of discrimination under Article 14 of the Indian constitution. His decision is based on the cases of the State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh, Sham Sunder v. UO, Western U.P. Electric Power and Supply Co. Ltd v. The State of Upper Michigan, and many other cases.

Concerning the factor of retiring age and the powers provided to the Managing Directors to extend the retirement of an employee, Justice Ali stated that the retirement age cannot be fixed upon it is based on a medical test and several other factors and circumstances.

CONCLUSIONS:

Gender discrimination is a social phenomenon where people are not treated equally, but discriminated against based on their gender We can see gender inequalities being followed in our society every day.

According to the circumstances of this mentioned case, the retirement age of air hostesses was set at 35 years due to the incorrect idea that women lose their youthfulness and glamor after that age. And when it comes to pregnancies or marriage retirement is unreasonable and against certain sections of the Constitution.

Hence, we can see the court struck down the provisions that were against Articles 14,15, and 16 to protect the basic rights of women. And, for this same reason, Regulation 47 was determined to be inappropriate as it leads to misuse of power by the managing directors.

SOURCES :

https://www.law.cornell.edu/women-and-justice/resource/air_india_v_nargesh_meerza