2003 (7) TMI 725 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds air hostesses' negotiated retirement age, emphasizing settlement terms & industrial adjudication process.

Air India Cabin Crew Association, Union of India, Kanwarjeet Singh & Ors., Rani Anthony & Ors Versus Yeshawinee Merchant & Ors, Air India Ltd. & Ors., Air India Hostesses Asson. & Ors

The Supreme Court overturned the Bombay High Court's decision regarding the retirement age of air hostesses, ruling that the negotiated retirement terms ... - Issues Involved:1. Age of retirement for air hostesses.2. Alleged discrimination based on sex under Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution.3. Compliance with Section 5 of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976.4. Validity of directives issued under Section 34 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953.5. Impact of pending reference before the National Industrial Tribunal.Detailed Analysis:1. Age of Retirement for Air Hostesses:The Bombay High Court held that fixing the retirement age of air hostesses at 50 years, with an option to accept ground duties until 58, is discriminatory compared to their male counterparts. The Supreme Court, however, found that this condition was part of a negotiated settlement and not discriminatory. The Court emphasized that the early retirement age was agreed upon by the majority of air hostesses and incorporated into statutory regulations and standing orders.2. Alleged Discrimination Based on Sex:The High Court viewed the retirement age as a violation of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, referencing the precedent set in Air India vs. Nergesh Meerza, which upheld different retirement ages for male and female crew members. The Court reiterated that the terms were not based solely on sex but on negotiated agreements considering the unique conditions of service for air hostesses.3. Compliance with Section 5 of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976:The High Court found the retirement policy violative of Section 5, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in service conditions. The Supreme Court countered this by stating that the retirement terms were part of a comprehensive package deal negotiated through industrial adjudication. The Court also noted that the declaration under Section 16 of the ER Act, which stated that differences in pay and conditions were based on factors other than sex, remained valid.4. Validity of Directives Issued Under Section 34 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953:The High Court invalidated the retirement policy based on a directive from the Central Government dated 16.10.1989, which mandated equal retirement ages for male and female crew members. The Supreme Court, however, found that a subsequent clarificatory letter dated 29.12.1989 allowed air hostesses to be assigned ground duties after a certain age, thus not contradicting the original directive. The Court held that both directives should be read together, confirming that air hostesses could be grounded post-50 years while retaining the retirement age of 58.5. Impact of Pending Reference Before the National Industrial Tribunal:The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for entertaining proposals from Air India to merge male and female cadres, which was beyond its jurisdiction and prejudiced the majority of air hostesses. The Court emphasized that such matters should be resolved through industrial adjudication. It suggested that the Central Government could enlarge the terms of reference to the National Industrial Tribunal to include disputes between Air India and its employees.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court's judgment, reinstating the negotiated retirement terms for air hostesses. The Court upheld that these terms were neither discriminatory nor violative of constitutional provisions or the Equal Remuneration Act. The Court also emphasized the importance of industrial adjudication for resolving such disputes and left it open for the Central Government to refer the matter to the National Industrial Tribunal.