Air India Vs. Nergesh Meerza & Ors [1981] INSC 152 (28 August 1981)
1981 Latest Caselaw 152 SC

Air India Vs. Nergesh Meerza & Ors [1981] INSC 152 (28 August 1981)

FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA VARADARAJAN, A. (J) SEN, A.P. (J)

CITATION: 1981 AIR 1829 1982 SCR (1) 438 1981 SCC (4) 335 1981 SCALE (3)1275

CITATOR INFO :

F 1983 SC 130 (14) RF 1987 SC1086 (29) F 1987 SC1515 (2,3,10) RF 1987 SC2354 (11)

ACT:

Constitution of India 1950, Articles 14 and 16, Air India Employees Service Regulations, Regulations 46 and 47, Indian Airline Service Regulation, Regulation 12.

Different conditions of service of Air Hostesses employed by Air India in India and United Kingdom-Validity of.

Conditions of service-Discrimination-Determination of question.

Retirement of Air Hostesses in the event of marriage taking place within four years of service-Whether unreasonable or arbitrary.

Retirement of Air Hostess-Provision in service rule, or on first pregnancy whichever occurs earlier-Whether unconstitutional.

Retirement age of Air Hostess-Fixation of at 45 instead of 58-Whether in valid .

Air Hostess-Extension of service-option conferred on Managing Director- Whether excessive delegation of power.

Air India Corporations Act 1953, S. 3-Air India International and Indian Air Lines-Whether separate and distinct entities.

Indian Evidence Act 1872 , S. 115-Estoppel against law- Whether permissible.

HEADNOTE:nditions except that the age of retirement of permanent AHs could be extended upto 40 years.

In their transferred case and writ petitions, it was contended on behalf of the A.H. that the Air Hostess employed by one corporation or the other from the same class of service as the AFPs and other members of the cabin crew, performing identical or similar duties and hence any discrimination made between these two employees who are similarly circumstanced was clearly violative of Art. 14, (2) There was an inter sc discrimination between the AHs posted in the United Kingdom and those serving in the other Air India flights (3) the AHs have been particularly selected for hostile discrimination by the Corporation mainly on the ground of sex or disabilities arising from se

By virtue of section 3 of the Air Corporation Act, 1953 the Central Government created two corporations known as Air India International and Indian Air Lines. A.I. Operating international flights and the I.A.C. Operating domestic flights within the country.

Air Hostesses employed by Air India were governed by Regulations 46 and 47 of Air India Employees Service Regulations and the Air Hostesses employed by l.A.C. were governed by the Indian Airlines Service, Regulation No. 12.

439 A.H. under A.I. was retired from service in the following contingencies:

(a) On attaining the age of 35 years;

(b) On marriage if it took place within four years of the service; and (c) On first pregnancy.

The age of retirement of AH could be extended upto ten years by granting yearly extensions at the option of the Managing Director. If the Managing Director chose to exercise his discretion under Regulation 47 an AH could retire at the age of 45 years.

A.H. under I.A.C. was governed by similar service co

x and, therefore, the regulations amount to a clear infraction of the provisions of Art. 15(1) and Art. 16(4). The termination of the services of AHs on the ground of pregnancy or marriage within four years is manifestly unreasonable wholly arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 (5).

(6) Apart from discrimination regarding the age of retirement, AHs have been completely deprived of promotional opportunities available to the male members of the cabin crew.

The Management contested the petitions by contending:

(1) Having regard to the nature of job functions, the mode of recruitment of AHs, their qualifications, their promotional avenues and the circumstances in which they retire, AHs fall within a category separate from the class to which the pursers belong and there can be no question of discrimination or contravention of Art. 14 which would apply if there is discrimination between the members of the same class inter se. (2) The recruitment of the AHs is actually sex based recruitment made not on the ground of sex alone but swayed by a lot of other considerations and hence Art.

15 (2) of the Constitution is not attracted. (3) Regulation 46 of the A.I. Regulations and the IAC Regulation 12 have been upheld by the Khosla and Mahesh Awards. They have statutory force and unless they are per se arbitrary or discriminatory the Court ought not to interfere with them particularly when those two Awards are binding on the parties. (4) Having regard to the circumstances prevailing in India and the effects of marriage the bar of pregnancy and marriage is undoubtedly a reasonable restriction placed in public interest. (5) If the bar of marriage or pregnancy is removed it will lead to 440 huge practical difficulties as a result of which very heavy expenditure would have to be incurred by the Corporations to make arrangements.

Partly allowing the petitions,

HELD: 1(i). The impugned provisions appear to be a clear case of official arbitrariness. As the impugned part of the regulation is severable from the rest of the regulation, it is not necessary to strike down the entire regulation. [491 A] (ii) That part of Regulation 47 which gives option to the Managing Director to extend the service of an AH is struck down. The effect of striking down this provision would be that an AH, unless the provision is suitably amended to bring it, in conformity with the provisions of Art. 14 would continue to retire at the age of 45 years and the Managing Director would be bound to grant yearly extensions as a matter of course for a period of ten years if the AH is found to be medically fit. This will prevent the Managing Director from discriminating between one AH and another. [501 A-B] (iii). The last portion of regulation 46 (i) (c) struck down. The provision 'or on first pregnancy whichever occurs earlier' is unconstitutional, void and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and will, therefore, stand deleted.

It will, however, be open to the Corporation to make suitable amendments. [491B]

2. It is undisputed that what Art. 14 prohibits is hostile discrimination and not reasonable classification. If equals and unequals are differently treated, there is no discrimination so as to amount to an infraction of Art. 14 of the Constitution. A fortiori if equals or persons similarly circumstanced are differently treated, discrimination results so as to attract the provisions of Art. 14.

[456 G-H, 457 A]

3. If there are two separate and different classes having different conditions of service and different incidents the question of discrimination does not arise. On the other hand, if among the members of the same class, discriminatory treatment is meted out to one against the other, Art. 14 is doubtless attracted. [457 A-B]

4. The following propositions emerge from an analysis and examination of cases decided by this Court:

(1) In considering the fundamental right or equality of opportunity a technical, pedantic or doctrinaire approach should not be made and the doctrine should not be invoked even if different scales of pay service terms, leave, etc.

are introduced in different or dissimilar posts. [462 G-H, 463 A] Thus where the class or categories of service are essentially different in purport and spirit, Art. 14 cannot be attracted. [463 B] (2) Art. 14 forbids hostile discrimination but not reasonable classification. Thus, where persons belonging to a particular class in view of their special attributes, qualities, mode of recruitment and the like, are differently treated in public interest to advance and boost members belonging to backward classes, 441 having a close nexus with the objects sought to be achieved Art. 14 will be A completely out of the way. [463 B-D] (3) Art. 14 certainly applies where equals are treated differently without any reasonable basis. [466 D] (4) Where equals and unequals are treated differently Art. 14 would have no application. [466 E] (5) Even if there be one class of service having several categories with different attributes and incidents, such a category becomes a separate class by itself and no difference or discrimination between such category and the general members of the other class would amount to any discrimination or to denial of equality of opportunity.

[466 F-F] (6) In order to judge whether a separate category has been carved out of a class of service, the following circumstances have generally to be examined:- (a) the nature, the mode and the manner of recruitment of a particular category from the very start.

(b) the classifications of the particular category.

(c) the terms and conditions of service of the members of the category;

(d) the nature and character of the posts and promotional avenues;

(e) the special attributes that the particular category possess which are not to be found in other classes, and the like. [463 F-H, 464 A-B] It is however difficult to lay down a rule of universal application but the circumstances mentioned above may be taken to be illustrative guidelines for determining the question. [464 B-C] Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra [1952] SCR 435, All India Station Masters' and Assistant Station Masters' Association and Ors. v, General Manager, Central Railways and Ors. [1960] 2 SCR 311, The General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari [1962] 2 SCR 586, State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh [1963] Supp. 2 SCR 169, Sham Sunder v. Union of India and Ors. [1969] 1 SCR 312, Western U.P.

Electric Power and Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Anr., [1969] 3 SCR 865 Ramesh Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors. [1978] 1 SCR 787 The State of Gujarat and Anr. v.

Shri Ambica Mills Ltd. etc. [1974] 3 SCR 760, State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa and Ors. [1974] 1 SCR 771 and United States v. James Griggs Raines, 4 L Ed 2d 524 referred to.

5. A comparison of the mode of recruitment, the classification, the promotional avenues and other matters indicate that the AHs form an absolutely separate category from AFPs in many respects having different service conditions. Finally, even though the AHs retire at the age of 35 (extendable to 45) they get retiral benefits quite different from those available to the AFPs. [468 D-F] 442

6. Having regard to the various circumstances, incidents, service conditions, promotional avenues, etc. of the AFPs the members of the cabin crew are an entirely separate class governed by different set of rules regulations and conditions of service. [471 B-C]

7. The declaration made by the Central Government by its notification dated 15-6-79 is presumptive proof of service and other types of remuneration, no discrimination has been made on the ground of sex only. [475 C]

8. What Article 15(1) and 16(2) lay down is that discrimination should not be made only and only on the ground of sex. These Articles do not prohibit the State from making discrimination on the ground of sex coupled with other considerations. [475 D] Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. The State of Bombay and Husseinbhoy Laljee [1954] SCR 930, Miss C.B. Muthamma v. U.O.I and Ors.

[1979] 4 SCC 260 referred to.

9. The argument on behalf of the AHs that the conditions of service with regard to retirement, etc. amount to discrimination on the ground of sex only is overruled.

The conditions of service indicated are not violative of Art. 16.

[476 B-C]

10. There is no unreasonableness or arbitrariness in the provisions of the Regulations which necessitate that Alls should not marry within four years of the service failing which their services will have to be terminated.

[480G.H,481A]

11. Having taken the AH in service and after having utilised her services for four years to terminate her service by the Management if she becomes pregnant amounts to compelling the poor AH not to have any children and thus interfere with and divert the ordinary course of human nature. The termination of the services of an AH under such circumstances is not only a callous and cruel act but an open insult to Indian womanhood the most sacrosanct and cherished institution. Such a course of action is extremely detestable and abhorrent to the notions of a civilised society. Apart from being grossly unethical, it smacks of a deep rooted sense of utter selfishness at the cost of all human values. Such a provision is not only manifestly unreasonable and arbitrary but contains the quality of unfairness and exhibits naked depotism and is clearly violative of Art. 14. [481 G-H, 482 A-C]

13. The rule could be suitably amended so as to terminate the services of an AH on third pregnancy provided two children are alive which would be both salutary and reasonable for two reasons. In the first place, the provision preventing third pregnancy with two existing children would be in the larger interest of the health of the AH concerned as also for the good upbringing of the children. Secondly it will not only be desirable but absolutely essential for every country to see that the family planning programme is not only whipped up but maintained at sufficient levels. [491 C-F] General Electric Company Martha v. Gilbbert, 50 L. Ed.

2d 343, State or West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar [1952] SCR 284, A.S. Krishna v. State of Madras [1957] SCR 399, Clevel and Board of Education v. Jo Carol La Fleur 39 L Ed 2d 443 52, Sharron A. Frontiero v. Elliot L. Richardson, 36 Ed 2d 583; Mary Ann Turner v. Department of Employment Security, 46 L Ed 2d 181, City of Los Angles Department of Water and Power v. Mary Manhart, 55 L Ed 2d 657, Bombay Labour Union Representing the workmen of M/s. International Franchises Pvt. Ltd. v. International Franchises Pvt. Ltd. [1966] 2 SCR 493, M/s. Dwarka Prasad Laxmi Narain v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. [1954] SCR 803 & Maneka Gandhi v Union of India [1978] 2 SCR 621 referred to.

13. Whether the woman after bearing children would continue in service or would find it difficult to look after the children is her personal matter and a problem which affects the AH concerned and the Corporation has nothing to do with the same. These are circumstances which happen in the normal course of business and cannot be helped. In these circumstances, the reasons given for imposing the bar are neither logical nor convincing. [489 C-E]

14. The factors to be considered must be relevant and bear a close nexus to the nature of the organisation and the duties of the employees. Where the authority concerned takes into account factors or circumstances which are inherently irrational or illogical or tainted, the decision fixing the age of retirement is open to serious scrutiny. [492 E-F]

15. In the present times with advancing mechanical technology it may not be very correct to say that a woman loses her normal facilities or that her efficiency is impaired at the age of 35, 40 or 45 years. It is difficult to generalise a proposition like this which will have to vary from individual to individual. On the other hand, there may be cases where an AFP may be of so weak and unhealthy a constitution that he may not be able to function upto the age of 58 which is the age of retirement of AFP according to the Regulation. The distinction regarding the age of retirement made by Regulation between AGs and AFPs cannot be said to be discriminatory because AGs have been held to be a separate class. [495 B-E]

16. The fixation of the age of retirement of AHs who fall within a special class depends on various factors which have to be taken into consideration by employers. [496 F] In the instant case, the Corporations have placed good material to show some justification for keeping the age of retirement at 35 years (extendable upto 45 years) but the regulation seems to arm the Managing Director with uncanalised and unguided discretion to extend the age of AHs at this option which appears to suffer from the vice of excessive delegation of powers. A discretionary power may not necessarily be a discriminatory power but where a statute confers a power on an authority to decide matters of moment without laying down any guidelines or principles or norms the power has to be struck down as being violative of Art. [496 G-H, 497 A] Lala Hari Chand Sard v. Mizo District Council and Anr.

[1967] 1 SCR 1012 and State of Mysore v. S.R. Jayaram [1968] 1 SCR 349 referred to.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION; Transferred Case No. 3 of 1981 Arising out of Transfer Petition No. 313 of 1980, Petition under Article 139A(1) of the Constitution of India for withdrawal to this Court of Writ Petition No. 1186 of 1980 pending in the Bombay High Court at Bombay.

WITH Writ Petitions Nos. 3045, 1107, 2458 & 1624 28/1981.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution.) IN TRANSFERRED CASE No. 3/81 Atul M. Setalvad, R. K. Kulkarni, D.B. Shroff, P.H.

Parekh and R.N. Karanajawala for the Petitioners.

F.S. Nariman, T.R. Andhyarujina, S.K Wadia, O.C. Mathur and Shri Narayan for Respondent No. 1.

F.D. Damania, B.R. Agrawala, H.D. Patil and Miss Halida Khatun for Respondent No. 3, B. Datta and R.K Kapur for Respondent No. 4.

IN WP. No. 3045/80 D.P. Singh and L.R. Singh for the Petitioners, O.C.

Mathur and Shri Narain for Respondent No. 1.

IN W.P. No. 1107/80 Niranjan Alva and Narayan Nettar for the Petitioner, G.B. Pai, O.C. Mathur and Shri Narain for Respondent No. 1 and G.S. Vaidyanathan for intervener.

IN W.P. No. 2458 of 1980 Margaret Alva and L.R. Singh for the Petitioner, P.R.

Mridul, O.C. Mathur and Shri Narain for Respondent No. 1.

IN W.P. No. 1624-28 of 1981 S. Venkiteswaran and R.S. Sodhi for the Petitioner, O.C. Mathur and Shri Narain for Respondent No. 1.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J. Transferred Case No. 3 of 1981 and the writ petitions filed by the petitioners raise common constitutional and legal questions and we propose to decide all these cases by one 445 common judgment. So far as Transferred Case No. 3/81 is concerned, it arises out of writ petition No. 1186/1980 filed by Nergesh Meerza & ors. Respondent No. 1 (Air India) moved this Court for transfer of the writ petition filed by the petitioners, Nergesh Meerza & Ors. in the Bombay High Court to this Court because the constitutional validity of Regulation 46(1) (c) of Air India Employees Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as 'A.I. Regulations') and other questions of law were involved. Another ground taken by the applicant-Air India in the transfer petition was that other writ petitions filed by the Air Hostesses employed by the Indian Airlines Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "I.A.C.") which were pending hearing in this Court involved almost identical reliefs. After hearing the transfer petition this Court by its order dated 21.1.81 allowed the petition and directed that the transfer petition arising out of writ petition No. 1186/80 pending before the Bombay High Court be transferred to this Court. By a later order dated 23.3.1981 this Court directed that the Transferred case may be heard alongwith other writ petitions. Hence, all these matters have been placed before us for hearing. For the purpose of brevity, the various petitions, orders, rules, etc. shall be referred to as follows:- (1) Air India as "A.I." (2) Indian Airlines Corporation as "I.A.C." (3) Statutory regulations made under the Air India Corporation Act of 1953 or the Indian Airlines Corporation Act of 1953 would be referred to as 'A.I. Regulation' and 'I.A.C. Regulation' respectively.

(4) Nergesh Meerza & Ors. as 'petitioners'.

(5) Declaration by the Central Government under Equal Remuneration Act as "Declaration" and Equal Remuneration Act 1976 as '1976 Act'.

(6) Air Corporation Act of 1953 as '1953 Act.' (7) Justice Khosla Award as 'Khosla Award' and Justice Mahesh Chandra Award as 'Mahesh Award'.

(8) Assistant Flight Pursers as 'AFPs' 446 (9) Air Hostess as 'A.H.'.and.Air Hostesses a 'AHs'.

(10) Air India Cabin Crew. as 'A.I. Crew' and Indian Airlines Corporation Cabin Crew as 'IAC Crew' (11) Flight Steward as "F.S." Before dealing with the facts of the case and the central constitutional controversies and substantial points of law involved in these petitions, it may be necessary to give a brief survey of the history which laid to the formation of the two Corporations, viz., A.I. and I.A.C.

By virtue of s. 3 of the 1953 Act, the Central Government by a notification published in the official Gazette created two Corporations known as Indian Airlines and Air India International. Section 3(2) provided that each of the two Corporations would be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal subject to the provisions of the Act to acquire and hold property. Section 4 of the 1953 Act provides for the constitution of the Corporations and section 5 deals with the conditions of service of the Chairman and other Directors of the Corporations. Section 7 defines the various functions of the Corporations. Further details regarding the provisions of s.

7 would be dealt with later wherever necessary. Section 8 deals with the appointment of the officers and other employees of the Corporations. Sections 10 to 15 deal with finance, accounts and audit. Section 34 defines the control which. the Central Government may exercise over the performance by the Corporation of its functions. The other provisions of the 1953 Act are not germane for the purpose of this case.

It is manifest therefore from a perusal of the various provisions of the 1953 Act that A.I. and I.A.C. were established as a single entity which was divided into two units in view of the nature of the duties that each Corporation had to perform. We have mentioned this fact particularly because one of the contentions of Mr. Nariman, counsel for A.I., was that A.I. itself was a separate and distinct entity and could not be equated with I.A.C. The provisions of the Act completely nullify this argument and clearly show that the two Corporations formed one single unit to be controlled by the Central Government under the 1953 Act. It may be that the two Corporations may have different functions to perform-A.I. Operating international flights and the other (IAC) operating domestic 447 flights within the country. This fact alone, however, would not make the two Corporations absolutely separate entities.

The two Corporations were part of the same organisation set up by the 1953 Act. This fact is fortified by subsequent events such as when disputes arose between the employees of the two Corporations, the dispute with respect to A.I. was referred to Justice Khosla and formed the basis of the Khosla Award. Similarly, dispute between the I.A.C. and its employees was referred to Justice Mahesh Chandra where A.I.

filed an application on behalf of the Air Corporation Employees Union (ACEU). The aforesaid Union represented both the A.T. and I.A.C. A prayer of the ACEU was allowed by the Tribunal by its order dated 1.3.1971 (vide p. 1191 of the Gazette of India-Sec. 3(ii) dated 25.3.72) for being impleaded as a party to the Reference. As a result of the allowing of the application of the ACEU the scope of the Reference was widened to include the demands of I.A.C. & A.I. This, therefore, clearly shows that the two Corporations formed one single entity and whenever any dispute arose they tried to get the dispute settled by a common agency. Thus, the two Corporations before the Industrial Tribunals did not take any stand that they were different entities having two separate individualities. The initial argument of Mr. Nariman on this point is, therefore, overruled at the threshold. In fact, Mr. Nariman having indicated the point did not choose to pursue it further because the sheetanchor of his argument was that so far as AHs in the two organisations are concerned they constitute a sex-based recruitment and, therefore, a completely separate and different category from the class of AFPs, in that, their service conditions, the mode of recruitment, the emoluments, the age of retirement of these two classes were quite different and, therefore, the question of the applicability of Art. 14 did not arise. We may have to dilate on this part of the argument a little later when we examine the respective contentions advanced before us by the counsel for the parties. At the moment, we would like first to complete the history of the circumstances leading to the present controversy between the parties. It appears that there was a good deal of disparity between the pay-scales and the promotional avenues of the male cabin crew consisting of AFPs, FPs and In-flight pursers on the one hand and the AHs, Check AH, Deputy Chief AH, Addl. Chief AH and Chief AH on the other. The case of the AHs was sponsored by the ACEU which made a demand for alteration of the service regulations prejudicial to AHs. This was some time prior to 1964. The said dispute was ultimately referred to a National Industrial Tribunal presided over by Mr. Justice G.D. Khosla 448 who gave his award on 28.7.1965 making some recommendations in order to improve the service conditions of AHs.

In fact, the main issue canvassed before the Khosla Tribunal centered round the question of the age of retirement of the AHs and matters connected therewith. A perusal of the Khosla Award shows that the parties entered into a settlement with respect to all other disputes excepting the retirement benefits on which the Tribunal had to give its award. In para 252 of the Award the dispute regarding the retirement age is mentioned thus:

"252. At present, the retirement age of the Air India employees is governed by Service Regulations Nos.

46 and 47. Service Regulation No. 46 is as follows:

46. Retirement Age:

... ... ... ...

(C) An Air Hostess, upon attaining the age of 30 years or on marriage, whichever occurs earlier.

... ... ... ...

253. Regulation No. 47 provides for a further extension of the employee beyond the age of retirement for an aggregate period not exceeding two years except in the case of Air Hostesses where the services can be extended upto a period of 5 years. The extension is granted on the employee being found medically fit." Thus, according to the Regulations prevalent in A.I. an AH had to retire at the age of 30 or on marriage whichever was earlier subject to an extension being granted for a period of 5 years if the employee was found to be medically fit. While considering this demand, the Tribunal seems to have upheld the view of the Corporation and found no reason to interfere with Regulation Nos. 46 and 47. In this connection, the Tribunal observed as follows:- "In my view, no case has been made out for raising the age of retirement and in cases where the efficiency of the employee is not impaired, there is suitable provision 449 under regulation 47 for extending his service upto the age of 60. As observed above, there have been no complaints of any employee being made to retire under the provision of clause (ii) of regulation 46." Giving the reasons for its conclusion the Award in Para 256 runs thus:- "With regard to air hostesses, the contention of the Management is that they are in a special class.

They have to deal with passengers of various temperaments, and a young and attractive air hostess is able to cope with difficult or awkward situations more competently and more easily than an older person with less personal prepossessions. On this point there can be no two opinions. It was also pointed out that air hostesses do not stay very long in the service of Air India, and young and attractive women are more inclined to look upon service in Air India as a temporary occupation than as a career. Most of them get married and leave the service. Counsel for the Corporation placed before me a table (Exhibit M 14) which shows that the average service of an air hostess for the 5 years between 1960 and 1965 was only two years. Only 2 air hostesses reached the age of 30. None was retired at the age of 30 and in all, 70 air hostesses resigned before reaching the age of retirement. The total number of air hostesses at present is 87 and, therefore, it will at once be seen that most of them chose to leave service of their own free will." It would thus be seen that one of the dominant factors which weighed with the Tribunal was that there were only 87 AHs out of whom quite a large number retired even before reaching the age of 30 years. The Tribunal was also impressed by the argument of the Corporation that AH had to deal with passengers of various temperaments and a young attractive AH was more suitable for doing the job. With due respect to Justice Khosla we may not agree with some of the reasons he had given, but the position has now completely changed as more than 15 years have passed and at present AI employees as many as 737 AHs. However, the matter rested there and the AHs seem to have lost their first battle before the Khosla Tribunal.

450 Thereafter, it appears the same dispute arose between the employees of I.A.C. which, as indicated above, had to be referred to another Tribunal, viz. Mahesh Tribunal, before whom a part of the dispute between several workmen was settled but the dispute which was not settled including the question of the age of retirement of AHs was referred to this Tribunal some time in November 1970 and the Award was given on 25th February 1972. Before this Tribunal also, the stand taken by the ACEU was that the age of retirement of AH should be fixed at 45 instead of 30 or 35 and the bar of marriage should be removed. The A.l., however, stuck to its original stand that having regard to the strenuous work to be put in by an AH, the age of retirement should be kept at

30. In this connection, the Mahesh Tribunal indicated the stand of the parties thus :

"The ACEU contends that age of retirement of air hostesses should be fixed at 45 instead of 30 or 35 as at present; that this demand for increase in the age of retirement is in accordance with Geneva Convention and that the bar of marriage on air hostesses should be removed.

The Air India's contention is that the nature and underlying object of the job of an air hostess requires that their age of retirement should be kept at 30 as at present. It has also been pointed out that after 30, the General Manager of the Corporation has the discretion to extend the age of retirement of an air hostess by one year at a time till she reaches the age of 40 years. As for the retirement on Marriage, the Air India's contention is that it is necessary and a desirable provision as otherwise after marriage they will not be able to fulfil adequately the main purpose of their employment.

The rule regarding extension of service in the Settlement between the ACEU and the Indian Airlines of January 10, 1972 is better worded and it should be adopted by the Air India also in its entirety." This appears to be the position upto the year 1972.

Subsequent events, however, show that both A.I. and I.A.C.

Iater realised that the Rules regarding the age of retirement and termination of AHs 451 work serious injustice and made several amendments. We would A first take up the various amendments made by the l.A.C.

The previous regulation regarding the retirement age of I.A.C. AH was regulation No. 12 which may be extracted thus:- "Flying Crew shall be retained in the service of the Corporation only for so long as they remain medically fit for flying duties.. Further, an Air hostess shall retire from the service of Corporation on her attaining the age of 30 years or when she gets married whichever is earlier. An unmarried Air Hostess may, however, in the interest of the Corporation be retained in the service of the Corporation upto the age of 35 years with the approval of the General Manager." (Vide counter-affidavit of Wing Commander N.C.

Bharma) This regulation was further amended on 13.7.68 which ran thus:

"An Airhostess shall retire from the service of the Corporation on her attaining the age of 30 years or when she gets married, whichever is earlier. The General Manager, may, however, retain in service an unmarried Air Hostess upto the age of 35 years." Then followed the Settlement dated 1O.1.1972 between the I.A.C. and ACEU under which AH was to retire at the age of 30 or on marriage. The General Manager, however, could retain an unmarried AH in service upto the age of 40 years.

Thus, the only difference that the Settlement made was that the discretion to extend the age of retirement of AH was increased by S years, i.e. from 35 years to 40 years.

Ultimately, however, the old Regulation underwent a further change and by virtue of a Notification published in the Gazette of India on 12.4.1980 in Part Hl, Section 4, para 3 of the amended regulation 12 was further amended thus:

"An Air Hostess shall retire from services of the Corporation upon attaining the age of 35 years or on marriage H if it takes place within four years of service or on first pregnancy, whichever occurs earlier." 452 This amendment seems to have made a slight improvement in the condition of service of AHs inasmuch as the age of retirement was fixed at 35 years and the bar of marriage was restricted only to a period of four years, that is to say, if an AH did not marry within a period of 4 years of her entry into service, she could retire at the age of 35. This amendment was not in supersession of but supplemental to the ACEU Settlement dated 1O.1.1972. In other words, the position was that an AH if she did not marry within 4 years, could go upto 35 years extendable to 40 years, if found medically fit. This was the historical position so far as the retirement age of AHs working with IAC is concerned. As regards AHs employed by AI the latest position is to be found in Regulations 46 and 47, the relevant portions of which may be extracted thus :- "46. Retiring Age:

Subject to the provisions of sub-regulation (ii) hereof an employee shall retire from the service of the Corporation upon attaining the age of 58 years, except in the following cases when he/she shall retire earlier:

(c) An Air Hostess, upon attaining the age of 35 years or on marriage if it takes place within four years of service or on first pregnancy, whichever occurs earlier.

47. Extension of Service.

Notwithstanding anything contained in Regulation 46, the services of any employee, may, at the option of the Managing Director but on the employee being found medically fit, be extended by one year at a time beyond the age of retirement for an aggregate period not exceeding two years, except in the case of Air Hostesses and Receptionists where the period will be ten years and five years respectively." Thus, an AH under A.I. was retired from service in the following contingencies:

(1) on attaining the age of 35 years;

(2) on marriage if it took place within 4 years of the service, and 453 (3) on first pregnancy.

The age of retirement of AH could be extended upto ten years by granting yearly extensions at the option of the Managing Director. Thus, if the Managing Director chose to exercise his discretion under Regulation 47 an AH could retire at the age of 45 years.

Thus, the only difference regarding the service conditions pertaining to the age of retirement or termination is that whereas the services of an I.A.C. AH could be extended upto 4() years, those of the A.I. AH could be extended upto 45 years, subject to the conditions indicated above. This appears to be the position regarding the service conditions of the AHs belonging to both the Corporations which form the cornerstone of their grievances before us.

Having given a brief history of the dispute between the parties we would now indicate the contentions advanced before us by the petitioners (AHs) and the counsel for the Corporations and other respondents. As the service conditions of AHs employed by the two Corporations are almost identical the arguments put forward by them also are almost the same with slight variations which will be indicated by us when we deal with the arguments.

Mr. Atul Setalvad appearing for the AHs in Transfer case No. 3 of 1981 has submitted some important and interesting points of law which may to summarised as follows:- (1) The AHs employed by one Corporation or the other form the same class of service as the AFPs and other members of the cabin crew. Both the male pursers and the AHs are members of the same cabin crew, per forming identical or similar duties and hence any discrimination made between these two members who are similarly circumstanced is clearly violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.

(2) Even if the AHs are a separate category or class, there is an inter se discrimination between the AHs posted in the United Kingdom and those serving in the other Air India flights.

(3) That the AHs have been particularly selected for hostile discrimination by the Corporation mainly on 454 the ground of sex or disabilities arising from sex and therefore, the regulations amount to a clear infraction of the provisions of Art. 15 (1) and Art. 16 of the Constitution of India.

(4) The termination of the services of AHs on the ground pregnancy or marriage within four years is manifestly unreasonable and wholly arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution and should, therefore, be struck down.

(5) The contention that a woman in view of strenuous work that she is called upon to perform, becomes tired or incapable of doing the work of catering to the passengers is based on pure speculation and being against the well established facts and norms set up by the Geneva Convention is clearly inconsistent with the concept of emancipation of women. No material has been placed before the Court to prove that the efficiency of the AHs is in any way impaired at the age of 40 or 45 years so as to make a gross discrimination between the male pursers and AHs.

(6) Apart from the discrimination regarding the age of retirement, the AHs have been completely deprived of promotional opportunities available to the male members of the cabin crew.

For the aforesaid reasons, it was contended that regulations 46 and 47 of Air-India Employee's Service Regulations and Regulation No. 12 of the Indian Airlines (Flying Crew) Service Regulations must be struck down as being discriminatory and ultra vires.

The counsel appearing for the petitioners in the writ petitions more or less adopted the arguments of Mr. Atul Setalvad in one form or the other.

In answer to the contentions raised by Mr. Setalvad and the counsel who followed him, Mr. Nariman appearing for A.l.

and Mr G.B. Pai for the l.A.C., adumbrated the following propositions:- (1) That having regard to the nature of job functions, the mode of recruitment of AHs, their qualifications, 455 their promotional avenues and the circumstances in A which they retire AHs fall within a category separate from the class to which the pursers belong and if AHs from a separate class or category by themselves, then there can be no question of discrimination or contravention of Art. 14 which would apply if there is discrimination between the members of the same, class inter se.

(2) The recruitment of the AHs is actually sex based recruitment made not merely on the ground of sex alone but swayed by a lot of other considerations:

hence Art. 15 (2) of the Constitution was not attracted. To buttress this argument reliance was placed by Mr. Nariman on the Declaration made by the Government under the 1976 Act.

(3) As the conditions mentioned in Regulation 46 of A.I. Regulations and 12 of the IAC Regulations have been upheld by the Khosla and Mahesh Awards, they have statutory force and unless they are per se arbitrary or discriminatory, the court ought not to interfere with them particularly when those two Awards are binding on the parties even though their period may have expired.

(4) Having regard to the circumstances prevailing in India and the effects of marriage, the bar of pregnancy and marriage is undoubtedly a reasonable restriction placed in public interest.

(5) If the bar of marriage or pregnancy is removed, it will lead to huge practical difficulties as a result of which very heavy expenditure would have to be incurred by the Corporations to make arrangements for substitutes of the working AHs during their absence for a long period necessitated by pregnancy or domestic needs resulting from marriage.

(6) The court should take into consideration the practical aspects of the matter which demonstrate the fact that a large number of AHs do not stick to the service but leave the same well before the age of retirement fixed under the Regulation.

456 Finally, as a very fair and conscientious counsel Mr. Nariman placed a few proposals which might mitigate the inconvenience caused to the AHs and remove a large bulk of their grievances. It was submitted by Mr. Nariman that he would in all probability persuade the management to accept the proposals submitted by him which will be referred to when we deal with the contentions of the parties at length.

We shall now proceed to deal with the respective contentions advanced before us indicating the reply of the respondents to the arguments raised by the petitioners.

It was vehemently argued by Mr. Setalvad that having regard to the nature of the duties and functions performed during the flight by AFPs and AHs both the groups constitute the same class or category of service under the Corporation and hence any difference or discrimination between the members in the same class is clearly violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. A second limb of the argument which flows from the first contention was that the AHs were selected for hostile discrimination by the Corporation in the matter of retirement, termination and promotional avenues which was manifestly unreasonable so as to attract Art. ]4 of the Constitution.

The counsel for the Corporation, however, countered the arguments of the petitioners on two grounds :- (1) That in view of the mode of recruitment, qualifications, retiral benefits and various other factors the AHs constitute a special category or class of employees different from the AFPs and, therefore, they could not be in any way equated with them.

(2) That in fact the recruitment of AHs was sex-based land swayed by a number of other considerations and not based on sex only.

In order to appreciate the arguments of the parties on this point it may be necessary to refer to the law on the subject which is now well settled by a long course of decisions of this Court. It is undisputed that what Art. 14 prohibits is hostile discrimination and not reasonable classification. In other words, if equals and unequals are differently treated, no discrimination at all occurs so as to amount to an infraction of Art. 14 of the Constitution. A fortiori 457 if equals or persons similarly circumstanced are differently treated, A discrimination results so as to attract the provisions of Art. 14.

In our opinion, therefore, the inescapable conclusion that follows is that if there are two separate and different classes having different conditions of service and different incidents, the question of discrimination does not arise. On the other hand, if among the members of the same class, discriminatory treatment is meted out to one against the other, Art. 14 is doubtless attracted.

In Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra(1) Sastri, C.J. observed thus:

"Though the differing procedures might involve disparity in the treatment of the persons tried under them, such disparity is not by itself sufficient, in my opinion, to outweigh the presumption and establish discrimination unless the degree of disparity goes beyond what the reason for its existence demands as, for instance, when it amounts to a denial of a fair and impartial trial." Fazal Ali J. as he then was, pithily observed as follows :- "I think that a distinction should be drawn between 'discrimination without reason' and 'discrimination with reason'. The whole doctrine of classification is based on this distinction and on the well-known fact that the circumstances which govern one set of persons or objects may not necessarily be the same as those governing another set of persons or objects, so that the question of unequal treatment does not really arise as between persons governed by different conditions and different sets of circumstances." Similar observations were made by Mukherjee, J. who remarked thus :- "The legislature is given the utmost latitude in making the classification and it is only when there is a palpable abuse of power and the differences made have no rational relation to the objectives of the legislation, that necessity of judicial interference arises." 458 The most apposite decision on the subject is the case of All India Station Master's & Assistant Station Master's Association & Ors. v. General Manager, Central Railways & Ors.(l) where the law on the subject was succinctly stated by Das Gupta, J. who speaking for the Court as follows :- "So multifarious are the activities of the State that employment of men for the purpose of these activities has by the very nature of things to be in different departments of the State and inside each department, in many different classes. For each such class there are separate rules fixing the number of personnel of each class, posts to which the men in that class will be appointed, questions of seniority, pay of different posts, the manner in which promotion will be effected from the lower grades of pay to the higher grades, e.g., whether on the result of periodical examination or by seniority, or by selection or on some other basis and other cognate matters. Each such class can be reasonably considered to be a separate and in many matters independent entity with its own rules of recruitment, pay and prospects and other conditions of service which may vary considerably between one class and another.

It is clear that as between the members of the same class the question whether conditions of service are the same or not may well arise. If they are not, the question of denial of equal opportunity will require serious consideration in such cases. Does the concept of equal opportunity in matters of employment apply, however, to variations in provisions as between members of different classes of employees under the State? In our opinion, the answer must be in the negative." The same view was reiterated by another decision of this Court in The General Manager, Southern Railway v.

Rangachari(2) where Gajendragadkar, J. pointed out thus:

459 " Would it. for instance, be open to the State to prescribe different scales of salary for the same or similar posts, different terms of leave or superannuation for the same or similar post ? On the narrow construction of Art. 16(1) even if such a discriminatory courses are adopted by the State in respect of its employees that would not be violative of the equality of opportunity guaranteed by Art. 16(1).

Such a result could not obviously have been intended by the Constitution.. The three provisions form part of the same constitutional code of guarantees and supplement each other.

If that be so, there would be no difficulty in holding that the matters relating to employment must include all matters in relation to employment both prior, and subsequent, to the employment which are incidental to the employment and form part of the terms and conditions of such employment.

... ... ...

It is common ground that Art. 16(4) does not cover the entire field covered by Art. 16(1) and (2). Some of the matters relating to employment in respect of which equality of opportunity has been guaranteed by Art.

16(1) and (2) do not fall within the mischief of non- obstante clause in Art. 16(4)." (Emphasis ours) In State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh(1) Ayyangar, J while delivering the majority judgment clearly elucidated the various spheres where Art. 14 could operate and observed thus :- "As we have stated already, the two Services started as independent services. The qualifications prescribed for entry into each were different, the method of recruitment and the machinery for the same were also different and the general qualifications possessed by and large by the members of each class being different, they started as two distinct classes.

If the government order of September 27, 1957, did not integrate them into a single service, it would follow that 460 the two remained as they started as two distinct services. If they were distinct services. There was no question of inter se seniority between members of the two services nor of any comparison between the two in the matter of promotion for founding an argument based upon Art. 14 or Art. 16(1). They started dissimilarly and they continued dissimilarly and any dissimilarly in their treatment would not be a denial of equal opportunity for it is common ground that within each group there is no denial of that freedom guaranteed by the two Articles. The foundation therefore, of the judgment of the learned Judges of tile High Court that the impugned rules created two classes out of what was formerly a single class and introduced elements of discrimination between the two, has no factual basis if, as we hold, the order of September 27, 1957, did not effectuate a complete integration of the two Services. On this view it would follow that the impugned rules cannot be struck down as violative of the constitution.' (Emphasis supplied) The same dictum was followed by this Court in a later case-Sham Sunder v. Union of India and ors.(l)-where it was pointed out that Art. 16(1) would be attracted only if there is a breach of equality between members of the same class of employees and Art. 14 did not contemplate equality between members of separate or independent classes. In this connection Bachawat, J. held thus:

"For purposes of promotion, all the enquiry-cum- reservation clerks on the Northern Railway form one separate unit. Between members of this class there is no discrimination and no denial of equal opportunity in the matter of promotion.. Equality of opportunity in matters of employment under Art. 16(1) means equality as between members of the same class of employees and not equality between members of separate, independent classes." The same principle was reiterated by this Court in Western U.P. Electric Power and Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Anr.(2) where Shah. J. observed thus:

461 "Article 14 of the Constitution ensures equality among A equals; its aim is to protect persons similarly placed against discriminatory treatment. It does not however operate against rational classification. A person setting up a grievance of denial of equal treatment by law must establish that between persons similarly circumstanced, some were treated to their prejudice and the differential treatment had no reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the law." In a recent decision of this Court in Ramesh Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors. (1) to which one of us (Fazal Ali, J.) was a party, the same principle was reiterated thus :- "Equality is for equals, that is to say, those who are similarly circumstanced are entitled to an equal treatment but the guarantee enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution cannot be carried beyond the point which is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Court." Similarly, in The State of Gujarat and Anr. v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd. etc.. (Z) Mathew, J. speaking for the Court pointed out that classification is inherent in legislation and expounding the concept of equality contained in Art. 14 observed thus :- "It may be remembered that article 14 does not require that every regulatory statute apply to all in the same business; where size is an index to the evil at which the law is directed, discriminations between the large and small are permissible, and it is also permissible for reform to take one step at a time, addressing itself to the phase of the problem which seems most acute to the legislative mind." ... ... ... ...

"Classification is inherent in legislation. To recognize marked differences that exist in fact is living law: to disregard practical differences and concentrate on some abstract . identities is lifeless logic." (Morey v. Doud U.S. 457, 472) In State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa and Ors.. (3) it was clearly pointed out that equality is 462 only for equals and even in cases of promotion Art. 14 would apply only if promotional facility is denied to equals within the same class. tn this connection, Chandrachud, J. (as he then was) pithily observed thus :- "But the concept of equality has an inherent limitation arising from the very nature of the constitutional guarantee. Equality is for equals. That is to say that those who are similarly circumstanced are entitled to an equal treatment.

Since the constitutional code of equality and equal opportunity is a charter for equals, equality of opportunity in matters of promotion means an equal promotional opportunity for persons who fall, substantially, within the same class." In United States v. James Griggs Raines (1) it was held that one to whom application of statute is constitutional cannot be heard to attack the statute on the ground that impliedly if it applied to other persons it might be unconstitutional. These observations, in our opinion, furnish a complete answer to the argument of the petitioners that Article 14 is violated in the instant ease.

Similar observations were made in Vol. 16 (PP. 236-237) of Corpus Juris Secundum which are extracted below :- "A person ordinarily is precluded from challenging the constitutionality of governmental action by invoking the rights of others and it is not sufficient that the statute or administrative regulation is unconstitutional as to other persons or classes of persons; it must affirmatively appear that the person attacking the statute comes within the class of persons affected by it." Thus, from a detailed analysis and close examination of the eases of this Court starting from 1952 till today, the following propositions emerge :- (1) In considering the fundamental right of equality of Opportunity a technical, pedantic or doctrinaire app- 463 roach should not be made and the doctrine should not A be invoked even if different scales of pay, service terms, leave, etc., are introduced in different or dissimilar posts.

Thus, where the class or categories of service are essentially different in purport and spirit, Art. 14 can- not be attracted.

(2) Art. 14 forbids hostile discrimination but not reason able classification. Thus, where persons belonging to a particular class in view of their special attributes, qualities, mode of recruitment and the like, are differently treated in public interest to advance and boost members belonging to backward classes, such a classification would not amount to discrimination having a close nexus with the objects sought to be achieved so that in such cases Art. 14 will be completely out of the way.

(3) Art. 14 certainly applies where equals are treated differently without any reasonable basis.

(4) Where equals and unequals are treated differently, Art. 14 would have no application.

(5) Even if there be one class of service having several categories with different attributes and incidents, such a category becomes a separate class by itself and no difference or discrimination between such category and the general members of the other class would amount to any discrimination or to denial of equality of opportunity.

(6) In order to judge whether a separate category has been carved out of a class of service, the following circumstances have generally to be examined:- (a) the nature, the mode and the manner of recruitment of a particular category from the very start, (b) the classifications of the particular category.

464 (c) the terms and conditions of service of the members of the category, (d) the nature and character of the posts and promotional avenues, (e) the special attributes that the particular category possess which are not to be found in other classes, and the like.

It is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application but the circumstances mentioned above may be taken to be illustrative guidelines for determining the question.

Applying these tests we now proceed to examine the correctness of the first contention advanced by Mr. Atul Setalvad and counsel for other petitioners and countered by the Corporations.

A very large number of affidavits and documents have been filed by the parties in support of their respective cases but in view of the arguments of the parties, the matter falls, in our opinion, within a very narrow compass and we shall refer only to those affidavits and documents which are germane for deciding the case on the basis of contentions advanced before us.

In order to test whether the category of AHs constitutes the same class as AFPS or is a separate category by itself, we shall detail the materials placed before us by the parties on this aspect of the matter. We shall first deal with the case of AHs employed by A.I.

To begin with, it is not disputed that at the initial recruitment a classification for appointment of AH and AFP is essentially different. For instance, while in the case of AFP the necessary qualifications are as follows:- (1) SCC or its equivalent (2) Minimum three years training experience in any Airline or three years Diploma in Catering from a recognised Institute or a Graduate.

(3) There is no requirement that AFP, should be unmarried .

(4) The AFP has to appear for a written I.C. test.

465 As against these basic requirements for entry into service for the class known as 'AFP', the requirements for AHs are as follows:- (1) SCC or its equivalent (2) AH must be unmarried B (3) No other requirement is needed for entry into service so far as AH is concerned.

Mr. Setalvad however, argued that both AHs and AFPs being members of the same cabin crew must be taken to belong to the same class. This argument fails to take into consideration the fact that if at the threshold the basic requirements of the two classes, viz., AFP and AH, for entry into service are absolutely different and poles apart even though both the classes may during the flight work as cabin crew, they would not become one class of service. D Secondly, while AFP starts with a grade of Rs. 385-535, the AH starts her career with the grade of Rs. 485-25-560- 40-770. This is also a very material difference which points to the AHs being a separate category both in respect qualifications at the entry into service and also in respect of starting salaries. E Another important distinction between AFPs and AHs is that whereas the total number of posts in A.I. Of AFPs are 494, in the case of AHs is 737. Thus, to begin with, the two classes differ in qualifications, in grades and also in the number of posts.

The matter does not rest there. Even the promotional avenues or channels of the two categories of service are quite different and so is their seniority. So far as the AFPs are concerned, the hierarchy is as follows:- (1) A.F.P.

(2) F.P. (Grade: Rs. 485-25-560-40-720-50-1020) The total number of posts of FPs are 372. Thus, by and large AH starts almost in the same grade as F.P. which is a higher post than AFP. The third higher category is Check F.P. which has the same emoluments as FPs with the difference that the Check FPs get an additional allowance of Rs. 200/- p.m. and the number 466 of posts are 61. The next promotional avenue is the post of Inflight Supervisor. The total posts are 69 and the Grade is Rs. 1100-501600-60- 1780- 100- 1880 No. of Grade Posts (5) Dy. Manger 8 1400-50-1600-60-1780 100-1880 (6) Manager 7 1720-60-1780-100-2180 (7) Manager, Cabin 1 1880- 100-2480 Crew It is asserted by the A.I. that it takes about 15 to 20 years for a F.P. to reach the promotional posts of Inflight Supervisor and 25 years to reach the post of Dy. Manager. As against this, n the hierarchy of AH is as follows:- No. of Grade posts

1. AH 737

2. Check AH 72

3. Dy. Chief AH 3 1100-50-1600-60-1780- 100-1880

4. Addl. Chief AH 3 1400-50-1600-60-1780- 100-1980

5. Chief AH 1 1720-60-1780-100-2180 It may be mentioned here that so far as the post of Dy.

Chief AH is concerned, by virtue of an agreement dated 30th May 1977 between the male members of the cabin crew it was decided to phase them out. A serious exception has been taken against the Corporation for having acceded to the demand for phasing out a post belonging to the category of AHs and that too without taking the consent of AHs. A serious protest on this account was lodged by the AHs which is to be found at page 166 of Vol. II of the Paperbook, the relevant portion of which of may be extracted thus :

467 "We do not see how any Flight Purser or Assistant A Flight Purser could suggest a viable proposal regarding our promotion considering this matter is in direct relation to Air Hostesses and their future.

In the past the Flight Pursers and the Assistant Flight Pursers took away our promotional avenue to Deputy Chief Air Hostess without even consulting us." At page 148 of Vol. II of the Paper Book, the affidavit details the circumstances under which the post of Dy. Chief AH was agreed to be phased out. In this connection, the following extracts are relevant :- "The Association also went into the grades of different categories of cabin crew and found that while the Deputy Chief Air Hostesses functioned on board the flight only as Check Air Hostesses and/or Air Hostess her grade was much higher than that of a Flight Purser who was in a higher status or cadre and had supervisory responsibilities. The management therefore was approached by the association resulting in the said agreement of 30.5.1977 which is already annexed hereto and marked Exhibit V above by which the category of Deputy Chief Air Hostesses was made redundant." k.

We are also unable to understand how the Management could phase out a post available to the AHs exclusively at the instant of Pursers when they had absolutely no concern with this particular post nor had the Pursers any ri