Collective bargaining and separate cadres defeated discrimination claims over retirement terms and ground-duty service conditions.

A collectively bargained retirement arrangement for air hostesses, including the option of ground duties until superannuation, was held not discriminatory under Articles 14, 15 and 16 because it formed part of distinct service conditions for separate cadres. The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 did not apply where the comparison was not between employees doing the same or similar work and the pre-existing terms were not shown to be sex-based discrimination. Government directions under Section 34 were construed as fixing retirement age at 58 years while preserving existing service arrangements. The Court also held that a writ court cannot restructure service conditions or merge cadres when the dispute remains before the industrial adjudicatory forum.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the lower retirement age for air hostesses with an option for ground duties up to superannuation was discriminatory under Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution; (ii) whether that service condition violated the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976; (iii) whether the Central Government's directions under Section 34 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 were wrongly construed by the High Court; and (iv) whether the High Court could, in writ jurisdiction, restructure service conditions and merge cadres while industrial adjudication was pending.

Issue (i): whether the lower retirement age for air hostesses with an option for ground duties up to superannuation was discriminatory under Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution.

Analysis: The service conditions were traced to a long series of agreements, settlements and awards negotiated between the employer and the recognised association, and were part of a package accepted by the majority of air hostesses. The Court relied on the earlier binding decision that air hostesses and flight pursers constitute separate cadres with different recruitment, promotional avenues and service conditions. It held that the challenged retirement arrangement was not a case of discrimination based only on sex, but a special service condition evolved through collective bargaining and industrial adjudication.

Conclusion: The challenge under Articles 14, 15 and 16 failed and the condition was upheld.

Issue (ii): whether that service condition violated the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976.

Analysis: The Court held that the relevant comparison under the Act is between persons doing the same work or work of a similar nature, which was not the case here because the two categories formed distinct cadres with different incidents of service. It further held that the statutory declaration under Section 16, coupled with the special-treatment exceptions in Section 15, preserved the arrangement. The amended prohibition against discrimination in conditions of service did not assist the respondents because the pre-existing terms were not shown to be sex-based discrimination.

Conclusion: The challenge under the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 failed.

Issue (iii): whether the Central Government's directions under Section 34 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 were wrongly construed by the High Court.

Analysis: Reading the original direction with the later clarification and the Government's affidavit, the Court held that the communications reflected a governmental decision that the retirement age would be 58 years, while the existing service regime continued to permit ground duties after the applicable flying age in accordance with service arrangements. The Court rejected the contention that the clarification was merely personal or ineffectual, and held that the High Court had erred in treating the directive as mandating full flying duties till 58 years.

Conclusion: The High Court's construction of the governmental directions was rejected.

Issue (iv): whether the High Court could, in writ jurisdiction, restructure service conditions and merge cadres while industrial adjudication was pending.

Analysis: The Court held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by accepting conditional proposals from the employer, ignoring the binding effect of prior settlements and the earlier Supreme Court ruling, and prejudicing parties who were not fully before it. Since the dispute regarding service conditions was already within the industrial adjudicatory process, the High Court ought not to have undertaken a parallel exercise of redesigning the terms of employment or imposing cadre merger and revised seniority arrangements.

Conclusion: The High Court's composite directions and consensual arrangement were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was set aside, the writ petition failed, and the service conditions favouring the appellant-side framework were restored, leaving any further restructuring to the appropriate industrial forum.

Ratio Decidendi: A service condition for women, evolved through collective bargaining and recognised industrial settlements, is not discriminatory merely because it differs from that of men, and a writ court cannot re-engineer such pre-existing service arrangements or merge cadres while the matter remains within the industrial adjudicatory domain.

---