Air India v. Nergesh Meerza
A service regulation terminating an air hostess's employment on first pregnancy is arbitrary and unconstitutional; differential retirement/marriage conditions tied to sex offend Article 14.
Facts
Service regulations of Air India and Indian Airlines required air hostesses to retire at 35 (extendable, in the managing director's discretion, to 45) and to leave service on marriage within four years or on first pregnancy, whereas comparable male cabin crew (assistant flight pursers) retired at 58. The regulations were challenged as discriminatory.
Issues
- Whether air hostesses and other cabin crew formed a single class so that differential service conditions violated Article 14/16.
- Whether termination on pregnancy and the unguided discretion to extend retirement age were arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Arguments
The air hostesses argued the conditions were sex discrimination dressed up in other garb and were arbitrary. Air India argued air hostesses formed a distinct cadre with separate recruitment and conditions, so the classification was reasonable.
Held
The Court accepted that air hostesses formed a separate cadre, so differing conditions per se did not offend Article 14. But it struck down the bar on continuing service after first pregnancy as arbitrary, 'extremely detestable and abhorrent to the notions of civilised society' and an unreasonable condition. The discretion to extend retirement age 'at the option' of the managing director without guidelines was held to confer uncanalised power and was also bad. The Court thus applied both the classification test and the arbitrariness test.
Ratio decidendi
Even within a validly classified cadre, a service condition that is arbitrary, unreasonable or confers unguided discretion violates Article 14; termination of employment on pregnancy is arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Significance
A leading application of the dual Article 14 framework — classification plus arbitrariness — to service regulations, and an early, much-cited check on arbitrary employment conditions affecting women. Commentators note the Court conflated unreasonableness with arbitrariness, illustrating the doctrinal tension between the old and new tests.
Related
Test yourself on Constitution of India. Application-level MCQs with instant scoring.
Take a subject test →