REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9857-9861  OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.20668-20672 of 2007)

AIR INDIA CABIN CREW ASSN. & ORS. … APPELLANTS   

             Vs.

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.  … RESPONDENTS

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9862-9865   OF 2011

(Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.20679-20682 of 2007)

AND  CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9866-9871  OF 2011

(Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.20773-20778 of 2007)

                                                                  2

J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos.20668-20672  

of 2007, Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos.20679-  

20682 of 2007 and Special Leave Petitions (Civil)  

Nos.20773-20778  of  2007,  have  been  taken  up  

together for hearing and final disposal, inasmuch  

as, the facts in the several matters are the same,  

and the law involved is also the same.  For the  

sake  of  convenience,  we  shall  narrate  the  facts  

from  Special  Leave  Petitions  (Civil)  Nos.20668-

20672 of 2007, which have been filed by the Air  

India Cabin Crew Association and two others.

3. The  common  issue  in  all  these  matters  is  

whether the promotional avenues and other terms of

                                                                  3

service of the pre-1997 cadre of Assistant Flight  

Pursers could be changed to their prejudice despite  

the provisions of the Air Corporation (Transfer of  

Undertakings  and  Repeal)  Act,  1994  and,  in  

particular, Section 8 thereof and also in view of  

the  judgments  of  this  Court  in  Air  India Vs.  

Nergesh Meerza & Ors. [(1981) 4 SCC 335], and Air  

India Cabin Crew Assn. Vs.  Yeshaswinee Merchant &  

Ors. [(2003) 6 SCC 277], along with the various  

agreements and settlement arrived at between the  

parties.  The  further  question  that  arises  is  

whether in the circumstances indicated, a policy  

decision  of  gender  neutralization,  which  was  

prospective  in  nature,  could  be  applied  

retrospectively to the pre-1997 cadre of Pursers  

and whether such application would be arbitrary and  

contrary to the provisions of Articles 14, 19 and  

21 of the Constitution, as it upsets certain rights

                                                                  4

relating to promotion which had vested in Assistant  

Flight Pursers belonging to the pre-1997 cadre.     

4. In order to appreciate the case made out by the  

appellants in these appeals, it is necessary to set  

out briefly some of the facts leading to the filing  

of the several writ petitions before the Delhi High  

Court.

5. According  to  the  appellants,  for  several  

decades two distinct cadres have been existing in  

Air India Corporation, comprising male Air Flight  

Pursers and female Air Hostesses, each with their  

own  terms  and  conditions  of  service,  including  

promotional avenues.  In 1980, one Nergesh Meerza  

and four other Air Hostesses filed Writ Petition  

No.1186  of  1980  in  the  Bombay  High  Court,  

questioning  the  constitutional  validity  of  

Regulation  46(i)(c)  of  the  Air  India  Employees’  

Service  Regulations  and  raising  certain  other

                                                                  5

questions of law.  Air India, being the Respondent  

No.1  therein,  moved  a  transfer  petition,  being  

Transfer Case No.3 of 1981, for transfer of the  

writ petitions from the Bombay High Court to this  

Court  on  the  ground  that  several  writ  petitions  

filed by Air India were pending before this Court  

and also on account of the fact that other writ  

petitions had also been filed by the Air Hostesses  

employed  by  the  Indian  Airlines  Corporation,  

hereinafter referred to as “IAC”, which were also  

pending in this Court involving almost identical  

reliefs.  Even  in  the  said  case,  which  was  

transferred  to  this  Court,  it  was  observed  that  

from a comparison of the method of recruitment and  

the  promotional  avenues  available,  Air  Hostesses  

formed an absolutely separate category from that of  

Assistant Flight Pursers in many respects, having  

different grades, different promotional avenues and  

different service conditions.  

                                                                  6

6. At this stage, it may be necessary to give a  

little further background regarding Indian Airlines  

Corporation and Air India Limited established under  

Section  6  of  the  Air  Corporations  Act,  1953.  

Subsequently, Indian Airlines Limited and Air India  

Limited  were  formed  and  registered  under  the  

Companies Act, 1956.  In 1994, the Air Corporations  

(Transfer of Undertakings and Repeal) Act, 1994,  

hereinafter referred to as “1994 Act”, was enacted  

to  provide  for  the  transfer  and  vesting  of  the  

undertakings  of  Indian  Airlines  and  Air  India  

respectively  to  and  in  the  companies  formed  and  

registered as Indian Airlines Limited and Air India  

Limited  and  also  to  repeal  the  Air  Corporations  

Act, 1953.  Section 3 of the 1994 Act provided for  

the  vesting  and  transfer  of  the  undertaking  of  

Indian Airlines in Indian Airlines Limited and the  

undertaking  of  Air  India  in  Air  India  Limited.

                                                                  7

Section 8 of the 1994 Act also specified that every  

officer  or  other  employee  of  the  Corporations,  

except  the  Director  of  the  Board,  Chairman,  

Managing Director or any other person entitled to  

manage  the  whole  or  a  substantial  part  of  the  

business and affairs of the Corporation serving in  

its employment immediately before the appointed day  

(1st April, 1994) would, in so far as such officer  

or other employee were concerned, become as from  

the appointed day, an officer or other employee, as  

the  case  may  be,  of  the  company  in  which  the  

undertaking had vested and would hold his office or  

service therein for the same tenure, at the same  

remuneration and upon the same terms and conditions  

of  service.   He  would  be  entitled  to  the  same  

obligations,  rights  and  privileges  as  to  leave,  

passage,  insurance,  superannuation  scheme,  

provident fund, other funds of retirement, pension,  

gratuity and other benefits as he would have held

                                                                  8

under the Corporation if its undertaking had not  

vested  in  the  Company,  with  the  option  of  not  

becoming  an  officer  or  other  employee  of  the  

Company.   

7. The dispute regarding the distinction between  

Assistant Flight Pursers and Air Hostesses resulted  

in a Record Note signed on 30th May, 1977, by the  

Air  India  Cabin  Crew  Association  and  Air  India  

Limited,  which  noticed  differences  between  the  

functional designation of In-Flight Crew and actual  

designation and also permitted female Executive Air  

Hostesses to fly.  After the decision in  Nergesh  

Meerza’s  case,  on  17th November,  1983,  a  further  

Record Note was entered into between the aforesaid  

Association and Air India Limited, which introduced  

avenues of promotion for Air Hostesses.  It was  

provided  that  the  avenues  of  promotion  for  Air  

Hostesses would be through the categories of Senior

                                                                  9

Check  Air  Hostess,  Deputy  Check  Air  Hostess  and  

Additional Chief Air Hostess to Chief Air Hostess.  

It was also indicated that as far as male Assistant  

Flight Pursers, comprising Flight Pursers and In-

Flight  Supervisors  were  concerned,  they  would  

continue  to  be  unaffected  and  the  hierarchy  on  

board  the  aircraft  for  various  categories  would  

remain as was then existing and there would be no  

change  in  the  job  functions  of  any  category  of  

cabin crew on account of the said agreement.  What  

is evident from the said Record Note is that the  

separate  and  distinct  cadres  of  male  and  female  

Cabin Crew were continued in respect of promotional  

avenues, hierarchy and job functions on board an  

aircraft.   

8. Subsequently, on 5th June, 1997, a settlement  

was arrived at between the appellants and Air India  

that  all  earlier  settlements,  awards,  past

                                                                  10

practices, record notes and understandings arrived  

at  between  the  erstwhile  Corporation  and  the  

appellant Association, would continue.  Immediately  

after  the  signing  of  the  said  Memorandum  of  

Settlement, on the very same day Air India Limited  

issued a promotion policy for all the Cabin Crew  

members,  but  treated  the  pre-1997  and  post-1997  

crew separately.  By a specific clause, the said  

promotion policy amended the existing promotional  

avenues for the male Cabin Crew to that of In-

Flight  Supervisors  and  female  Cabin  Crew  to  the  

post of Senior Check Air Hostesses recruited prior  

to the settlement.  The said promotion policy kept  

the promotional avenues in the two streams of male  

Cabin Crew and female Cabin Crew, recruited prior  

to 1997, separate.    

9. It may be of interest to note that there was a  

distinct  division  among  the  Air  Hostesses,  the

                                                                  11

majority of whom belonging to “workmen” category,  

numbering  about  684  at  the  relevant  time,  were  

members of the Air India Cabin Crew Association.  

When the revised promotion policy for Cabin crew  

was brought into effect from 7th June, 1997, a small  

number of about 53 Air Hostesses, who were about 50  

years of age, including those promoted to executive  

cadres for ground duties or who were at the verge  

of  retirement  from  flying  duties,  formed  an  

association in the name of Air India Air Hostesses’  

Association.  The  Association  unsuccessfully  

challenged the binding effects of the Settlement of  

5th June, 1997, in the Bombay High Court, but got  

itself impleaded as a party in a pending Reference  

before the National Industrial Tribunal and raised  

the issues of merger and interchangeability of job  

functions between the male and female Cabin Crew  

members.   Despite  opposition  from  the  appellant  

Association, which represented 684 out of 1138 Air

                                                                  12

Hostesses of Air India, the High Court accepted the  

conditional proposal of merger of cadres of male  

and female members of Cabin Crew and held that Air  

Hostesses were also entitled to retire at the age  

of 58 years from flying duties on par with Flight  

Pursers and other members of the cabin crew.  The  

High Court held that the age of retirement from  

flying duties of Air Hostesses at and up to the age  

of 50 years with option to them to accept ground  

duties  after  50  and  up  to  the  age  of  58  years  

amounted to discrimination against them based on  

sex, which was violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16  

of the Constitution, as also Section 5 of the Equal  

Remuneration Act, 1976.  It was further held that  

the  two  cadres  of  male  and  female  Cabin  Crew  

members came to be merged only after 1997 and such  

merger applied to fresh recruits and the conditions  

of service and distinction between the two cadres  

would continue with regard to the existing Cabin

                                                                  13

Staff up to the year 1997.          

10. The aforesaid promotion policy separated the  

promotional avenues for male Cabin Crew and female  

Cabin Crew recruited prior to 1997 as a separate  

and  distinct  class,  as  was  also  observed  in  

Yeshaswinee Merchant’s case (supra).  According to  

the  appellants,  the  Union  of  India,  by  its  

directive dated 21st November, 2003, attempted to  

over-reach  the  judgment  of  this  Court  in  

Yeshaswinee Merchant’s case (supra), wherein, the  

directives  dated  16th October,  1989  and  29th  

December, 1989, were to become inoperative after  

the  Repeal  Act  of  1994.   Thereafter,  on  18th  

December, 2003, in terms of the directive of 21st  

November, 2003, the Respondent No.2 came out with  

an  Office  Order  of  even  date,  wherein,  it  was,  

inter alia, indicated that with the flying age of  

female Cabin Crew having been brought at par with

                                                                  14

the male Cabin Crew, the issue of seniority and  

promotion  would  have  to  be  addressed  by  the  

Department so that there was no resentment among  

the categories of employees.  Liberty was given to  

the In-Flight Service Department to assign flight  

duties to such Air Hostesses, who may have been  

grounded at the age of 50 years.  On 30th December  

2003, the Respondent No.2 addressed a letter to the  

Air Hostesses informing them that in keeping with  

the directions received from the Respondent No.1,  

it had been decided by the management to allow them  

to  fly  up  to  the  age  of  58  years,  though,  of  

course, such decision would be without prejudice to  

the  proceedings  pending  before  the  National  

Industrial  Tribunal  at  Mumbai.   Thereafter,  by  

subsequent letters, the Respondent No.2 wrote to  

the  appellant  Association  that  on  the  issue  of  

service conditions, the management was aware of the  

various Agreements, Awards and Judgments and it was

                                                                  15

re-emphasized that the two cadres were not being  

merged and the service conditions of the male and  

female  Cabin  crew  continued  to  be  separate  and  

distinct in terms of the Agreements and judgments  

passed in respect thereof.   

11. However, in contrast to the correspondence on  

27th December, 2005, the Respondent No.2, in total  

disregard  of  the  Record  Notes,  Memorandum  of  

Settlement  and  the  judgments  of  this  Court  in  

Nergesh Meerza’s case and in Yeshaswinee Merchant’s  

case  (supra),  issued  an  administrative  order  

bringing female Cabin crew and the male Cabin Crew  

at  par  in  respect  of  age  of  retirement.  

Accordingly, Air Hostesses were also permitted to  

fly up to the age of 58 years.  In the said order  

it was also indicated that after the promulgation  

of the order, the Executive Female Cabin Crew would  

be eligible to be considered for the position of

                                                                  16

In-Flight Supervisor along with the Executive Male  

Cabin Crew.  It was, however, clarified that the  

number of Executive Cabin Crew to be designated as  

In-Flight Supervisors would be based on operational  

requirements of the company.

12. On  the  promulgation  of  the  said  order,  the  

appellant Association made a representation to the  

Chairman and Managing Director of the Respondent  

No.2 on 28th December, 2005, pointing out that the  

same was contrary to the judgments of this Court.  

Since the appellant Association did not receive any  

response  to  its  representation,  it  filed  Writ  

Petition (C) Nos.983-987 of 2006, before the Delhi  

High Court on 21st January, 2006, complaining that  

the  orders  passed  were  arbitrary,  illegal  and  

contrary to the various decisions of this Court.  

The  said  writ  petitions,  along  with  various  

connected matters, came up for consideration before

                                                                  17

the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  on  30th  

January,  2006.   After  impleading  Air  India  Air  

Hostesses Association and the Air India Executive  

Air  Hostesses  Association  as  respondents  in  the  

writ petition on the ground that they were likely  

to be affected by any order which may be passed in  

the pending proceedings, the appellant Association  

filed  its  Rejoinder  Affidavit  to  the  Counter  

Affidavits filed by the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3  

and denied the claim of the respondents that the  

posts of Flight Supervisors had been abolished by  

the promotion policy of 1997 and that the male and  

female cadres of the Cabin Crew recruited prior to  

1997, had been merged.  Before the Division Bench  

of the High Court, both the parties appeared to  

have  clarified  their  stand  that  the  merger  of  

Indian  Airlines  with  Air  India  did  not  in  any  

manner  affect  the  existing  settlements  and  

agreements.  Ultimately, on 8th October, 2007, the

                                                                  18

Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ  

petitions filed by the appellant Association.  By  

the said judgment, the Division Bench of the High  

Court  rejected  the  challenge  of  the  appellant  

Association  to  the  constitutional  validity  of  

Section  9  of  the  Air  Corporation  (Transfer  of  

Undertakings) Act, 1994, though, on the ground of  

laches.   The  other  challenge  to  the  impugned  

directive issued by the management on 21st November,  

2003, was also not accepted.  More importantly, for  

our purpose in these cases, the Division Bench of  

the High Court held that the expression “In-Flight  

Supervisor” is, in fact, a description of a job  

function and is not a post exclusively reserved for  

the male Cabin crew.

13. As  mentioned  hereinabove,  these  appeals  are  

directed against the said decision of the Division  

Bench of the High Court of Delhi.

                                                                  19

  14. Appearing for the appellant Association and the  

other appellants in SLP(C)Nos.20668-20672 of 2007  

(Now  appeals),  Mr.  Pramod  B.  Agarwala,  learned  

Advocate for the appellants in SLP(C)Nos. 20679-

20682 of 2007, contended that the Appellant No.1,  

Association, is a registered trade union under the  

Trade Unions Act and represents the largest number  

of Cabin Crew in the country, both prior to and  

after 1997 of both Air India and the former Indian  

Airlines.  Learned counsel contended that the said  

Association  is  the  sole  recognized  union  for  

collective bargaining in respect of the Cabin Crew,  

such as Air Hostess and Flight Purser cadres.  He  

submitted  that  the  said  Association  represented  

more than 1480 Cabin Crew in Air India and more  

than  350  of  their  members  were  pre-1997  Air  

Hostesses  and,  approximately,  360  were  pre-1997  

Flight Pursers.  The Executive Cabin Crew members

                                                                  20

are  represented  by  the  Air  India  Officers  

Association, as also the Air India Executive Cabin  

Crew Association.  It was contended by Mr. Agarwala  

that none of the other trade unions are recognized  

or registered trade unions.   

15. Mr. Agarwala submitted that the challenge to  

the directive issued by the Central Government on  

21st November, 2003, had been wrongly interpreted by  

the  management  of  Air  India  as  facilitating  the  

breach  of  binding  Settlements,  Agreements  and  

Record Notes.  The management of Air India also  

appears  to  have  taken  the  position  that  the  

directive issued by the Central Government on 21st  

November,  2003,  freed  it  from  the  directions  

contained  in  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  

Yeshaswinee Merchant’s case (supra).  Mr. Agarwala  

submitted that the decision in these appeals would  

depend on the answers to the following questions :

                                                                  21

(a) Whether the decision of this Court in  

Nergesh Meerza’s case and  Yeshaswinee  

Merchant’s  case  (supra),  could  be  

nullified  by  an  order  of  the  Civil  

Aviation Ministry issued under Section  

9 of the Air Corporation (Repeal and  

Transfer  of  Undertakings)  Act,  1994,  

and also whether the same could set  

aside  the  various  Record  Notes,  

Settlements  and  Agreements  entered  

into by Air India with the appellant  

Association?; and  

(b) Did the post of In-Flight Supervisor  

stand abolished by the promulgation of  

the promotion policy of 5th June, 1997?

                                                                  22

16. Referring to the judgment of the High Court,  

Mr.  Agarwala  submitted  that  three  issues  were  

framed for adjudication, namely,

(i) What is the effect of the judgments  

of  the  Supreme  Court  in  Nargesh  

Meerza’s  case  (supra)  and  in  the  

case of Yeshaswinee Merchant (supra)  

on  the  validity  of  the  impugned  

orders and directives?;

(ii) Is  the  position  of  an  In-Flight  

Supervisor a job function or a post  

and  how  does  the  same  affect  the  

claim  of  male  Cabin  Crew  in  the  

Flight Purser cadre to an exclusive  

right  to  be  appointed  to  such  a  

position?

                                                                  23

(iii)Are  the  impugned  circulars  and  

orders  rendered  invalid  either  on  

account  of  procedural  violations  

and/or  on  the  grounds  of  

discrimination,  arbitrariness  or  

irrationality  and  do  they  violate  

any  previous  settlements  and  

agreements?   

17. Mr. Agarwala submitted that the High Court had  

misunderstood the decisions rendered by this Court  

and had proceeded on an erroneous assumption that  

Flight Pursers were claiming benefits only for the  

male Cabin Crew.   

18. Mr. Agarwala submitted that in the two cases  

referred to hereinabove, the relevant findings are  

that on a comparison of the mode of recruitment,  

the  classification,  the  promotional  avenues  and  

other  matters  which  had  been  discussed,  it  was

                                                                  24

clear that Air Hostesses formed a separate category  

from that of Air Flight Pursers, having different  

grades, different promotional avenues and different  

service conditions, but no discrimination had been  

made  between  Flight  Pursers  and  Air  Hostesses,  

although  their  service  conditions  may  have  been  

different. It was also held that the post of In-

Flight  Supervisor  belongs  to  the  Flight  Purser  

cadre.  While  considering  the  fact  that  the  

retirement age of Air Hostesses was 58 years, Air  

Hostesses were prohibited from flying beyond the  

age of 50 years.  What was also established was  

that  there  could  be  no  interchangeability  of  

functions between the two cadres, unless the same  

was  introduced  by  way  of  settlement  between  the  

appellant  Association  and  the  management  of  Air  

India. Mr. Agarwala submitted that all these issues  

had been considered by this Court in the light of  

the  various  Agreements,  Settlements  and  Awards

                                                                  25

entered  into  by  Air  India  with  the  appellant  

Association in Yeshaswinee Merchant’s case and once  

such an exercise had been undertaken by this Court,  

it  was  no  longer  open  to  the  High  Court  to  

undertake a fresh exercise on the decided issues.  

 19. Mr.  Agarwala  further  contended  that  the  

findings of this Court could not be negated by a  

mere  directive  issued  by  the  Government  under  

Section 9 of the 1994 Act.  The said directive of  

21st November,  2003,  merely  directs  Air  India  to  

allow  the  female  Cabin  crew  to  perform  flying  

duties up to the age of 58 years in the interest of  

operations  and  in  view  of  the  exigencies  of  

circumstances.   Mr.  Agarwala  submitted  that  by  

issuing  such  an  administrative  order,  on  27th  

December, 2005, Air India was not only seeking to  

nullify the judgments of this Court, but also the

                                                                  26

binding  settlements  which  had  been  arrived  at  

between the parties.

  20. On the question as to whether the abolition of  

a post could be implied or whether it has to be an  

explicit arrangement through a bilateral settlement  

or a Court order, learned counsel submitted that,  

although, it had been Air India’s stand that the  

post of In-Flight Supervisor stood abolished under  

the  1997  promotion  policy,  the  same  is  not  

reflected  either  in  the  said  policy  or  the  

settlement.  In fact, except for placing on record  

a seniority list as on 1994 and 1998, no other  

material had been disclosed to establish the fact  

that the posts of In-Flight Supervisors had been  

abolished.  Mr. Agarwala repeated his submission  

that it had been admitted by Air India that the  

post of In-Flight Supervisor was meant exclusively  

for  the  Flight  Purser  cadre,  since  their

                                                                  27

promotional  avenue  and/or  any  change  in  their  

service  conditions  could  only  be  brought  about  

through a bilateral settlement with the appellant  

Association.   Mr.  Agarwala  pointed  out  that  in  

Nergesh Meerza’s case this Court had observed that  

it  was  unable  to  understand  how  the  management  

could  phase  out  the  posts  available  to  the  Air  

Hostesses exclusively at the instance of Pursers  

when they had no concern with the said post nor did  

they have any right to persuade the management to  

abolish a post which had been meant for them.  This  

Court went on to observe that since the decision  

had  been  taken  as  far  back  as  in  1977  and  no  

grievance had been made by the Air Hostesses in  

that regard, no relief could be given to them, but  

in  view  of  the  limited  promotional  channels  

available  to  Air  Hostesses,  Air  India  should  

seriously  consider  the  desirability  of  restoring  

the posts of Deputy Chief Air Hostess in order to

                                                                  28

remove the injustice which had been done to the Air  

Hostesses,  in  violation  of  the  principles  of  

natural justice.   

21. Consequent  upon  the  decision  in  Nergesh  

Meerza’s  case,  a  settlement  was  reached  on  17th  

November,  1983,  whereby  the  Executive  Post  of  

Deputy Chief Air Hostess was reintroduced with a  

separate standard force and job profile and also  

defining separate promotional avenues for the cadre  

of  Flight  Pursers  and  Air  Hostesses.   The  

subsequent settlement of 25th December, 1988, went  

further and increased the standard force of Deputy  

Chief Air Hostesses, while maintaining the separate  

avenues of promotion of the two cadres.  

22. The  third  Agreement  contained  in  the  Record  

Note of Understanding dated 17th March, 1995, did  

not contain anything of relevance to the facts of  

this case, except for paragraph 6 of the Note which

                                                                  29

provided for interchangeability of job functions.  

It was indicated that in respect of new entrants  

there  would  be  interchangeability  in  the  job  

functions between male and female members of the  

Cabin  Crew  to  ensure  optimum  utilization  of  the  

existing work force and the standard force to be  

maintained,  without  affecting  the  promotional  

avenues of the work force then in existence and  

that the uniform conditions of service were to be  

maintained.  Paragraph 7 dealt with the upgradation  

of In-Flight service, which, it was agreed, would  

be  carried  out  as  per  the  Agreement  dated  6th  

October,  1992,  with  immediate  effect.   The  said  

Agreement did not change anything as far as the two  

separate cadres were concerned, which continued to  

remain in existence.   

23. The  aforesaid  Agreement  was  followed  by  a  

policy  adopted  by  Air  India  for  redesignation,

                                                                  30

scales of pay and changes in promotion policy for  

Executive  Cabin  Crew  of  In-Flight  Services  

Department.  The same was contained in a letter  

dated  24th May,  1996,  written  by  the  Director,  

H.R.D., to the Director of Finance of Air India.  

By virtue of the said policy, the posts of the  

Executive  Cabin  Crew  of  the  In-Flight  Services  

Department were redesignated.  The Executive Cabin  

Crew began from Grade No.27, which consisted of In-

Flight Supervisors and Deputy Chief Air Hostesses.  

Their  designation  was  revised  to  that  of  Deputy  

Manager-IFS.   Grade  No.29  consisting  of  Deputy  

Manager  and  Additional  Chief  Air  Hostesses  were  

redesignated as Manager-IFS.  Grade No.31, which  

comprised of Managers and Chief Air Hostesses, were  

redesignated as Senior Managers-IFS.  Lastly Senior  

Managers  in  Grade  No.34  were  redesignated  as  

Assistant General Managers-IFS.  It was made clear  

that  such  redesignation  was  for  Administrative/

                                                                  31

Executive ground assignments and, that the existing  

functional designations of In-Flight Supervisor and  

Air  Hostess  would  continue,  whilst  on  flight  

duties,  in  accordance  with  the  prevailing  

practices.  The scales of pay were also revised and  

a fitment method was introduced in respect thereof.  

The effect of the said policy was that all Cabin  

Crew could be required to discharge dual functions,  

in the air and also on the ground, in addition to  

duties to be performed by In-Flight Supervisors.   

24. Inasmuch  as,  all  members  of  the  appellant  

Association,  which  was  a  Trade  Union  registered  

under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, belong to the  

workmen category of the Cabin Crew, as was then  

existing, such as Assistant Flight Purser, Flight  

Purser,  Check  Flight  Purser,  Additional  Senior  

Check Flight Purser, Senior Check Flight Purser,  

Air Hostess, Senior Air Hostess, Check Air Hostess,

                                                                  32

Additional Senior Check Air Hostess, Senior Check  

Air Hostess and those recruited from March, 1995  

onwards till the date of Settlement, they intimated  

to the Management of Air India on 1st July, 1990,  

that  the  Settlement  entered  into  between  the  

Management  for  the  period  1st October,  1985  to  

August 31, 1990, stood terminated on the expiry of  

the period specified in the Settlement.  A fresh  

Charter of Demands for the period commencing from  

1st September, 1990, was also submitted.  On 26th  

May,  1993,  the  Management  of  Air  India  and  the  

appellant  Association  signed  a  Memorandum  of  

Settlement providing for payment of interim relief  

during the period of wage settlement for the period  

commencing  from  1st September,  1990.   It  was  

indicated that the settlement was in supersession  

of  all  previous  Agreements,  Record  Notes,  

Understandings,  Awards  and  past  practices  in  

respect  of  matters  specifically  dealt  with  or

                                                                  33

amended or modified.  It was stipulated that the  

Settlement would be implemented after the same was  

approved by the Board of Directors of Air India  

Limited.  The result of the said Settlements and  

Agreements  was  that  the  designation  of  Air  

Hostesses and Flight Pursers were discontinued and  

all were designated as “Cabin Crew”.

25. Then came the promotion policy for Cabin Crew  

on 5th June, 1997.  It was stipulated therein that  

the  revised  promotion  policy  would  cover  all  

promotions of Crew from the induction level up to  

the level of Manager, which is the first Executive  

level post, with the object of providing planned  

growth to the Cabin Crew.   From this date onwards,  

the two cadres of the Cabin Crew stood merged as  

far  as  the  fresh  recruits  were  concerned.  

Paragraph 7.4 of the promotion policy provided that  

the  existing  category  of  Cabin  Crew  on  being

                                                                  34

promoted  to  the  new  grades  would  continue  to  

perform their job functions prior to such promotion  

till the time of actual requirement in the higher  

grade.  It was also provided in paragraph 7.5 that  

on promotion to the Executive cadre, i.e., to the  

level of Manager and above, the male Cabin Crew  

would continue to carry out their respective job  

functions  of  Assistant  Flight  Pursers/Flight  

Pursers, as the case may be, until such time they  

started  performing  the  functions  of  In-Flight  

Supervisors  on  a  regular  basis.   Mr.  Agarwala  

submitted that paragraph 7.4 created a cadre within  

a cadre after 5th June, 1997, and those recruited  

prior to 1995 and 1999 were to continue in their  

old  cadre  till  the  date  of  merger  and  the  new  

service  conditions  would  apply  to  new  recruits  

after the said date.                  

                                                                  35

26. Mr.  Agarwala  submitted  that  this  Court  had  

taken  into  account  all  the  various  Agreements,  

Settlements  and  Awards  entered  into  by  the  

Management  of  Air  India  with  the  appellant  

Association in  Yeshaswinee Merchant’s case and it  

was  not  open  to  the  High  Court  to  attempt  to  

rewrite  the  law,  as  had  been  declared  by  this  

Court.    

27. Mr. Agarwala contended that all the Agreements  

arrived at between the appellant Association and  

the Management of Air India in 1977, 1983, 1988 and  

1995, dealt with Executive posts and also protected  

the separate and distinct promotional avenues of  

Flight  Pursers  and  Air  Hostesses,  at  least  till  

1997, when there was a merger of the Cabin Crew.  

28. On the question as to whether by the directive  

of  21st November,  2003,  issued  by  the  Government  

under  Section  9  of  the  1994  Act,  the  law  as

                                                                  36

declared by this Court in  Yeshaswinee Merchant’s  

case could be unsettled, Mr. Agarwala’s response  

was to the contrary.  It was submitted by him that  

the said directive only directed Air India to allow  

the female Cabin Crew to perform flying duties up  

to the age of 58 years, but it did not say anything  

more.  On  the  other  hand,  by  issuing  the  

Administrative Order dated 27th December, 2003, Air  

India was seeking to nullify the judgments of this  

Court, as also the binding settlements, which it  

was not empowered to do under the law.  It was  

submitted  that  a  contrary  view  could  not  be  

canvassed by the Government authorities barely four  

months after the judgment of this Court, concluding  

that the directives were no longer operative due to  

the  repeal  of  the  Air  Corporations  Act,  1994.  

Mr. Agarwala contended that the directive of 21st  

November,  2003,  issued  by  the  Government  was  

nothing but a mechanism evolved by the management

                                                                  37

of Air India to circumvent the judgments of this  

Court, which it could not do.   

29. As to the second proposition as to whether a  

post  could  be  abolished  by  implication,  Mr.  

Agarwala  submitted  that  the  same  could  only  be  

effected through a bilateral settlement or a Court  

order.  It was urged that, although, on behalf of  

Air India it had been submitted that the post of  

In-Flight Supervisor had been abolished under the  

said promotion policy, not a single clause of the  

settlement reflects such submission.  Mr. Agarwala  

submitted that except for a seniority list of 1994  

and 1998, no material had been placed on behalf of  

the Air India to show that in fact the post of In-

Flight  Supervisor  had  been  abolished.   In  this  

regard,  Mr.  Agarwala  also  referred  to  the  

observation made by this Court in Nergesh Meerza’s  

case, where it had been observed that the Court was

                                                                  38

unable to understand how the Management could phase  

out  a  post  available  to  the  Air  Hostesses  

exclusively, at the instance of Pursers, when they  

had absolutely no concern with the said post.

30. Mr. Agarwala submitted that the case of the  

appellant  Association,  representing  the  In-Flight  

Pursers,  was  confined  to  the  question  of  the  

benefits which were available to In-Flight Pursers  

prior to the promotion policy of 1997.

31. Mr.  Sanjoy  Ghose,  learned  Advocate  appearing  

for  the  appellants  in  SLP(C)Nos.20679-20682  of  

2007, supported the submissions made on behalf of  

the All India Cabin Crew Association and submitted  

that  the  Appellant  No.1,  Kanwarjeet  Singh,  was  

himself  a  party  in  Yeshaswinee  Merchant’s  case  

(supra).  Learned  counsel  submitted  that  the  

appellants were all Assistant Flight Pursers, who  

also sought the same relief as was being sought by

                                                                  39

the Air India Cabin Crew Association.  Mr. Ghose  

submitted that the appellants were aggrieved by the  

order passed by the Minister of Civil Aviation on  

21st November,  2003,  enhancing  the  age  of  flight  

duties of female Cabin Crew up to 58 years and also  

the subsequent order passed by Air India on 18th  

December,  2003,  directing  the  In-Flight  Services  

Department of Air India to assign flight duties to  

Air Hostesses who had been grounded at the age of  

50 years.  Mr. Ghose submitted that even the Office  

Order issued by Air India on 27th December, 2005,  

stating  that  Air  India  would  be  at  liberty  to  

consider Air Hostesses for the post of Air Flight  

Supervisor, was contrary to the decision of this  

Court in both  Nergesh Meerza’s case, as well as  

Yeshaswinee Merchant’s case, indicating that there  

were three different categories of staff comprising  

the Cabin Crew.  It was submitted that by issuing  

the said orders, Air India was trying to by-pass

                                                                  40

the decisions of this Court in the said two cases.  

It  was  submitted  that  the  question  has  to  be  

decided as to whether the functions discharged by  

In-Flight Pursers were “job functions” or whether  

the same were the adjuncts of the Flight Purser’s  

duties  on  board  the  Aircraft.   It  was  further  

contended that whatever be the answer to the said  

question, what was material is that in the absence  

of an express agreement with the majority union,  

the job functions, which were the subject matter of  

industrial agreements and settlements, could not be  

altered or abolished in any manner by Air India.   

32. Mr.  Ghose  further  submitted  that  the  

respondents’ contention that the post of In-Flight  

Supervisor is an executive post and workmen have no  

locus standi to challenge the same, is contrary to  

the position adopted by the management of Air India  

regarding the legitimate interest of the appellants

                                                                  41

by  which  their  avenues  of  promotion  had  been  

altered  and  their  future  job  functions  had  been  

affected, without recourse to the lawful process of  

collective bargaining.  It was pointed out that in  

Yeshaswinee Merchant’s case (supra), this Court had  

held that executives, who as workmen had entered  

into  and  benefited  from  the  various  industrial  

settlements, could not attempt to wriggle out of  

the  same,  merely  on  account  of  having  received  

promotions to the executive cadre.   

33. The other challenge with regard to the increase  

in the retirement age of Air Hostesses up to 58  

years and also assigning them flying duties up to  

and beyond the age of 50 years, was the same as in  

the Air India Cabin Crew Association’s case.  In  

addition,  it  was  also  submitted  that  having  

protected  the  conditions  of  service  of  the  

employees  under  Section  8  of  the  1994  Act,  the

                                                                  42

legislature  could  not  have  intended  to  confer  

powers  upon  the  Central  Government  in  Section  9  

thereof, to direct the Management of Air India to  

alter  the  conditions  of  service  which  had  been  

settled  on  the  basis  of  binding  settlements  and  

agreements.   In  support  of  his  submissions,  Mr.  

Ghose referred to the decision of this Court in  

Karnataka  State  Road  Transport  Corporation Vs.  

KSRTC Staff & Workers’ Federation & Anr. [(1999) 2  

SCC 687], wherein, it was held that the power of  

the Government to issue directives could not in its  

width over-ride industrial law or create service  

conditions.   Mr.  Ghose  submitted  that  since  the  

decision in  Yeshaswinee Merchant’s case continued  

to hold the field, any attempt to question the 1997  

policy on the ground of ironing out the creases  

relating to accelerated promotions and eligibility  

criteria was misplaced and the 2003 directive to  

permit Air Hostesses to fly beyond the age of 50

                                                                  43

years,  which  was  exigency  based,  should  not  be  

allowed to continue for 8 years, since almost a  

thousand new Cabin Crew had been recruited after  

2003.

34. In  SLP(C)Nos.20773-20778  of  2007,  Rajendra  

Grover and Ors. Vs. Air India Ltd. & Anr., the same  

challenges were advanced as in the other two SLPs.  

It was submitted by Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, learned  

Advocate  appearing  for  the  appellants,  that  Air  

India is a Government Company within the meaning of  

Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, in which  

one of the departments is the “In-Flight Services  

Department”, which includes the Cabin Crew Section,  

consisting of members of two separate and distinct  

cadres – Air Hostess’s Cadre and Flight Purser’s  

Cadre.  Mr. Aggarwal submitted that this Court had  

clearly recognized the said two cadres as separate  

and distinct in Nergesh Meerza’s case (supra), and

                                                                  44

the same was upheld in Yeshaswinee Merchant’s case  

(supra).  Accordingly,  the  conditions  of  service  

with  regard  to  the  various  posts  had  been  the  

subject matter of negotiations and settlements and,  

as contended both by Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal and Mr.  

Ghose,  the  same  could  not  be  altered  to  the  

detriment of the workmen without due consultation  

with the concerned unions.  Mr. Aggarwal urged that  

the post of In-Flight Supervisor is a post which  

was exclusive to the Flight Pursers Cadre and even  

if it is taken as a job function, the same would  

continue  to  be  exclusive  to  the  Flight  Pursers  

cadre and could not, therefore, have been extended  

to Air Hostesses after 1997 when the Cabin Crew  

comprised of In-Flight Purser and Air Hostess were  

merged.  Mr. Aggarwal, submitted that on account of  

judicial  precedent  and  the  principles  of  res  

judicata, the decisions in  Nergesh Meerza’s case  

and  Yeshaswinee Merchant’s case were binding and

                                                                  45

since the terms and conditions of service of the  

pre-1997  recruits  had  been  fixed  through  

negotiations  and  agreements  made  in  course  of  

industrial adjudication, the High Court ought not  

to have accepted the proposal of merger of the two  

cadres, without the consent of the employees.  He  

also  reiterated  that  a  splinter  group  of  Air  

Hostesses,  who  had  consented  to  the  merger  as  

proposed by Air India, could not wriggle out of the  

binding agreements and settlements to which they  

were also parties through the Air India Cabin Crew  

Association, merely on the ground that they were no  

longer  workmen  as  they  had  been  promoted  to  

executive posts.  It was urged that the decision  

taken by the Management of Air India contained in  

the order of the Ministry of Civil Aviation dated  

21st November, 2003, and the Office Order issued by  

Air India on 18th December, 2003, as well as the  

Office  Order  dated  27th December,  2005,  were,

                                                                  46

illegal,  arbitrary  and  in  violation  of  the  

principles  of  res  judicata and  were,  therefore,  

liable to be quashed.   

35. Mr. L. Nageshwara Rao, learned Senior Advocate,  

who  also  appeared  on  behalf  of  the  Appellant  

Association, submitted that the three issues framed  

for adjudication by the High Court related to (1)  

the effect of the judgments of the Supreme Court in  

Nergesh Meerza’s case and in Yeshaswinee Merchant’s  

case (supra) on the validity of the impugned orders  

and directives; (2) Whether the position of an In-

Flight Supervisor was a job function or a post; and  

(3) Whether the impugned circulars and orders were  

rendered  invalid  on  the  ground  of  procedural  

violation  or  on  the  ground  of  discrimination,  

arbitrariness or irrationality.  Mr. Rao submitted  

that  all  the  three  issues  had  been  incorrectly  

answered by the High Court.  

                                                                  47

36. Mr.  Rao  submitted  that  since  it  had  been  

categorically held in Nergesh Meerza’s case and in  

Yeshaswinee Merchant’s case that Air Hostesses and  

Flight Pursers constitute different cadres and that  

“In-Flight Supervisor” is a post belonging to and  

forming part of the Flight Purser cadre, the same  

could not be altered by mere Office Orders.  It was  

also held that there could be no interchangeability  

of functions between the two cadres, unless such  

interchangeability  was  introduced  by  way  of  

settlement  between  the  Appellant  Association  and  

the Management of Air India.  Mr. Rao submitted  

that the High Court also observed that there was no  

discrimination made out as regards the differential  

treatment between Flight Pursers and Air Hostesses  

and their service conditions could be different.  

Accordingly, the flying age of Air Hostesses from  

the  Pre-1997  settlement  period  was  fixed  at  50

                                                                  48

years, though the retirement age was 58 years.  On  

the  question  whether  the  position  of  In-Flight  

Supervisor was a job function or a post, Mr. Rao  

submitted that the said question had been decided  

in Nergesh Meerza’s case and it was held that the  

post belonged to the Flight Pursers cadre.  

 37. On  the  third  issue  regarding  whether  the  

impugned  circulars  and  orders  had  been  rendered  

invalid, Mr. Rao submitted that there could not be  

any exercise of powers by the Central Government  

under Section 9 in respect of the dispute, having  

regard  to  the  decisions  rendered  in  Nergesh  

Meerza’s case and in  Yeshaswinee Merchant’s case.  

Mr.  Rao  submitted  that  the  High  Court,  while  

considering  the  matter,  had  arrived  at  a  wrong  

conclusion  and  the  impugned  judgment  was,  

therefore, liable to be set aside.  

                                                                  49

38. The  submissions  made  on  behalf  of  the  

appellants  in  all  these  appeals  were  strongly  

opposed on behalf of the Union of India by the  

Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Gaurav Banerji.  

He submitted that on the basis of a Record Note  

dated 30th May, 1977, between Air India and the Air  

India Cabin Crew Association, the post of Deputy  

Chief  Air  Hostess  was  abolished  and  the  service  

conditions  of  Air  Hostesses  were  altered  on  12th  

April,  1980  vide  Regulation  46.   Subsequently,  

after the judgment in  Nergesh Meerza’s case, the  

post of Deputy Chief Air Hostess was reintroduced  

on 17th November, 1983, and the challenge thereto  

was rejected both by the learned Single Judge and  

the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court.  On  

16th October, 1989, the Government of India issued  

directions to Air India under Section 34 of the  

1983  Act  to  increase  the  retirement  age  of  Air  

Hostesses to 58 years and the same was followed by

                                                                  50

a  Clarification  dated  29th December,  1989,  

indicating  that  while  the  Air  Hostesses  would  

retire  at  the  age  of  58  years,  they  would  be  

entitled  to  fly  till  the  age  of  45  years.  

Thereafter,  on  12th January,  1983,  a  further  

Circular  was  issued  by  Air  India  extending  the  

flying age of Air Hostesses from 45 years to 50  

years.  Soon thereafter, the Air Corporation Act  

was repealed by the Air Corporations (Transfer of  

Undertakings and Repeal) Act, 1994, resulting in  

the  Record  Note  between  Air  India  and  the  

Association on 17th March, 1995, leading to the re-

designation of scales of pay and changes in the  

promotion policy for the Executive Cabin Crew of  

In-Flight  Services  Department.   Mr.  Banerji  

submitted that on 5th June, 1997, a Memorandum of  

Settlement was entered into between Air India and  

the Association and on the same day, a promotion  

policy for Cabin Crew was also promulgated.  This

                                                                  51

was  challenged  in  the  Bombay  High  Court  in  

Yeshaswinee Merchant’s case (supra), in which the  

Bombay High Court held that the cadre of Flight  

Pursers was distinct and separate from that of Air  

Hostesses.  Mr. Banerji submitted that while the  

decision  in  Yeshaswinee  Merchant’s  case  was  

rendered by the Division Bench on 11th July, 2003,  

by  a  Presidential  Directive  dated  21st November,  

2003,  issued  under  section  9  of  the  Air  

Corporations (Repeal) Act, 1994, Air Hostesses were  

allowed to undertake flying duties till the age of  

58 years, which was followed by the Administrative  

Order  dated  27th December,  2005,  by  which  the  

Executive female Cabin Crew was made eligible to be  

considered to be in position along with male Cabin  

Crew.      

39. Mr. Banerji submitted that the issues involved  

in  these  matters  are  purely  administrative  in

                                                                  52

nature relating to the management of Air India and  

did  not,  therefore,  attract  the  provisions  of  

Article 14 of the Constitution as the Company has  

the  right  to  run  and  manage  its  affairs  in  

accordance with law.  Mr. Banerji submitted that in  

the  revised  Promotion  Policy  for  the  Cabin  Crew  

dated 5th June, 1997, there was a shift from the  

policy of standard force promotion to a time bound  

policy.  By virtue of Clause 4 of the Promotion  

Policy, there was a merger of the male and female  

Cabin  Crew,  both  the  existing  crew  and  new  

recruits, to make them all eligible for the Career  

Advancement Scheme.

40.  Referring  to  the  Memorandum  of  Settlement  

arrived at between the management and the workmen  

represented  by  the  Appellant  Association,  Mr.  

Banerji  pointed  out  that  the  said  Settlement  

covered only the workmen and not the members of the

                                                                  53

executive staff.  He pointed out that in clause 7  

of  the  Memorandum  of  Settlement  it  was  

categorically stated and agreed to by the parties  

that the Cabin Crew who are promoted to the grade  

of  Manager  (Grade  29  and  above)  would  not  be  

represented  by  the  Appellant  Association.   Mr.  

Banerji submitted that as per the earlier promotion  

policy, a decision had been taken to rationalize  

the designations of the Cabin Crew.  In keeping  

with the said decision In-Flight Supervisors and  

Deputy Chief Air Hostesses, who were in Grade 27,  

were re-designated as Deputy Manager–IFS.  Grade 28  

was abolished and Grade 29 was comprised of Deputy  

Manager  and  Additional  Chief  Air  Hostesses,  who  

were  re-designated  as  Manager-IFS.   It  was,  

however,  clarified  that  the  revised  designations  

were  for  executive/administrative  ground  

assignments.  The existing functional designations  

of In-Flight Supervisors and Air Hostesses would

                                                                  54

continue while on flight duties, in accordance with  

prevailing practices.  Once again referring to the  

revised  Promotion  Policy  of  5th June,  1997,  Mr.  

Banerji  also  referred  to  paragraph  7.4  onwards  

where it has been stated in no uncertain terms that  

the existing cadre of Cabin Crew on being promoted  

to the new/higher grades would continue to perform  

their job functions prior to such promotion till  

the  time  actual  requirement  arose  in  the  higher  

grade or position.  Paragraph 7.5.1 also stipulated  

that on promotion to the executive cadre i.e. to  

the level of Manager (Grade 29 and above) the male  

Cabin  Crew  would  continue  to  carry  out  their  

respective job functions of AFP/FP till such time  

as they started to perform the functions of In-

Flight Supervisors on a regular basis. Mr. Banerji  

also pointed out that in paragraph 7.5.3 it has  

been mentioned that the male Cabin Crew would be  

required  to  carry  out  executive/administrative

                                                                  55

office  duties,  as  and  when  required,  without  

disturbing their bids and on promotion to the level  

of Manager and above, they would be entitled to  

applicable allowances and benefits attached to the  

respective  executive  grades  of  Cabin  Crew.  

Similarly,  in  the  case  of  promotee  female  Cabin  

Crew  recruited  prior  to  March,  1995,  to  the  

executive  grades,  paragraph  7.5.4  provided  that  

there would be no change in their existing terms  

and conditions of service and the female Cabin Crew  

would be entitled to be paid for their flights.  

They  would  also  be  entitled  to  applicable  

allowances  and  benefits  attached  to  their  

respective  grades  of  Cabin  Crew.   Mr.  Banerji  

submitted  that  the  aforesaid  Settlement  and  

Promotion  Policy  superseded  all  the  earlier  

Settlements and hence the claim of the Appellants  

regarding the right of In-Flight Pursers to pre-

merger benefits was not tenable in law.       

                                                                  56

41. Referring to the decision in  Nargesh Meerza’s  

case (supra), Mr. Banerji contended that two cadres  

of In-Flight Pursers and Air Hostesses were being  

maintained separately, although, there was always a  

possibility  of  duties  and  job  functions  

overlapping.  By the revised Promotion Policy the  

two cadres were brought at par with each other.  

Mr.  Banerji  submitted  that  the  basis  of  the  

decision in Yeshaswinee Merchant’s case (supra) was  

that the majority of the Air Hostesses had wanted  

to  retire  from  flight  duties  on  international  

flights at the age of 50 yeas or opt for ground  

duties on 50 years of age up to the age of 58 years  

on  a  par  with  males,  so  that  at  least  in  some  

period of their service, they would not have to  

remain for long periods away from their homes and  

families.

                                                                  57

42. Mr. Banerji submitted that, although, in the  

writ petitions before the High Court the  vires of  

Section  9  of  the  Air  Corporations  (Transfer  of  

Undertaking  and  Repeal)  Act,  1994,  had  been  

challenged, the said provisions were exactly the  

same, as was contained in Section 34 of the Air  

Corporations  Act,  1953,  which  empowered  the  

Government to issue any directions in respect of  

any  functions  of  the  Corporations,  which  then  

existed,  where  the  Corporations  have  power  to  

regulate  the  matter  in  any  manner  including  the  

terms  and  conditions  of  service  of  officers  and  

employees  of  the  Corporation.   In  fact,  the  

provisions of Section 9 of the Repeal Act had not  

been diluted in any way by the judgments in the  

Nergesh Meerza and in Yeshaswinee Merchant’s case.  

Mr. Banerji submitted that for a long time there  

had  been  complaints  with  regard  to  the  

discrimination  in  the  service  conditions  of  Air

                                                                  58

Hostesses  in  Air  India  and  it  was,  therefore,  

decided to remove such discrimination in service  

conditions of the Air Hostesses to bring them at  

par  with  other  male  crew  members.   Mr.  Banerji  

submitted that in individual cases, Air Hostesses  

could be allowed to opt out of flying till the age  

of 58 years, but as a general Rule, by virtue of  

the Presidential Directive, all Air Hostesses were  

required to discharge the functions of Air Cabin  

Crew along with their male counter-parts.  As far  

as Air Hostesses belonging to the Executive Cadre  

are concerned, even they were required to discharge  

such duties till they could be accommodated in a  

substantial vacancy.   

43. Mr.  Banerji  submitted  that  the  decision  to  

increase  the  flying  age  of  Air  Hostesses  to  58  

years was to remove the discrimination allegedly

                                                                  59

practised against them and not to prejudice their  

service conditions.   

44. Appearing  for  a  group  of  Air  Hostesses  

represented by the Air India Hostesses Association  

and the Air India Executive Hostesses Association,  

Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the writ petition filed  

by Kanwarjeet Singh, Mr. C.U. Singh, learned Senior  

Advocate,  submitted  that  the  said  Association  

(AICCA)  had  no  right  to  question  the  claims  of  

those  who  had  already  been  promoted  to  the  

managerial cadre by virtue of the revised promotion  

policy.  Mr.  Singh  submitted  that  the  said  

Association could represent employees up to Grade  

26  who  were  considered  to  be  “workmen”  for  the  

purposes  of  collective  bargaining.   Mr.  Singh  

pointed  out  that  the  settlement  dated  5th June,  

1997,  was  only  with  regard  to  the  terms  and  

conditions of service of workmen up to Grade 26.

                                                                  60

45. Mr. Singh submitted that the claim of the Air  

Hostesses  for  parity  of  service  conditions  with  

their male counter-parts had been continuing for a  

considerable  length  of  time.   The  said  disputes  

were referred to the National Industrial Tribunal  

by the Central Government on 28th February, 1972.  

The  Award  was  published  on  25th March,  1972,  

wherein, it was ultimately observed that the nature  

of  duties  of  In-Flight  Supervisors,  the  Deputy  

Chief  Flight  Pursers  and  the  Deputy  Chief  Air  

Hostesses  were  administrative  and  supervisory.  

Hence, they were not “workmen” within the meaning  

of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947,  and  their  

case was beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.  

The Tribunal also took note of the evidence that  

the  Deputy  Chief  Air  Hostess  and  the  In-Flight  

Supervisor performed supervisory functions, both on  

the ground as well as in flight and that Cabin Crew  

were to work as a team and interchangeability of

                                                                  61

duties could be insisted upon by the Management in  

emergencies, when a standby Crew of that class was  

not available.  It was, however, clarified that the  

Management should not have blanket power to effect  

such  interchangeability  of  duties  between  Air  

Hostesses and Assistant Flight Pursers and Flight  

Pursers.  Mr.  Singh  reiterated  that  in  1977  the  

supervisory post of Deputy Chief Air Hostesses was  

phased out and on account of the anomalies which  

surfaced the Record Note of Agreement signed by the  

Management of Air India and the Association on 30th  

May,  1977  took  note  of  the  fact  that  female  

Executives,  irrespective  of  rank  or  seniority,  

would  be  listed  as  Air  Hostesses  on  board  the  

Aircraft, and would be deprived of their rank and  

seniority.  Consequently, all reports issued on the  

Aircraft  would  have  to  be  signed  by  the  Air  

Hostess, irrespective of her rank and were to be  

countersigned by the Flight Purser. This ultimately

                                                                  62

led to the new promotion policy for Cabin Crew on  

5th June,  1997,  which  was,  however,  confined  to  

employees  in  the  workmen  category  alone.  

Ultimately,  by  Office  Order  dated  18th December,  

2003, female Cabin Crew were permitted to undertake  

flying duties up to the age of 58 years with the  

object that opportunities for male and female Cabin  

Crew should be equal in Air India and that female  

Cabin Crew should be eligible for being considered  

for the post of In-Flight Supervisor along with the  

male Cabin Crew.   

       46. Mr. Singh submitted that ultimately the writ  

petitions, which were  filed,  inter  alia,  for  a  

declaration that Section 9 of the Air Corporation  

(Transfer of Undertakings and Repeal) Act, 1994,  

was  ultra  vires and  for  other  reliefs,  was  

dismissed by the Delhi High Court, resulting in the  

Special Leave Petitions.  Mr. Singh submitted that

                                                                  63

there was no substance in the appeals filed since  

the revised promotion rules had been approved and  

accepted by all concerned.  Mr. Singh urged that it  

was  on  account  of  the  continued  representations  

made for placing the cadre of Air Hostesses at par  

with  the  cadre  of  In-Flight  Pursers,  that  the  

settlement was arrived at and there was no reason  

to interfere with the same.  Mr. Singh submitted  

that  the  appeals  were,  therefore,  liable  to  be  

dismissed.   

47. From  the  submissions  made  on  behalf  of  the  

respective  parties,  what  ultimately  emerges  for  

decision is whether the management of Air India was  

entitled to alter the service conditions of Flight  

Pursers  and  Air  Hostesses,  despite  several  

bilateral agreements arrived at between Air India  

and its workmen represented by the Air India Cabin  

Crew Association, and the Executive cadre of In-

                                                                  64

Flight Pursers and Air Hostesses promoted to the  

Executive rank and given Grade 29, which was the  

starting point of the Executive cadre.  The other  

connected question involved is whether those Flight  

Pursers  who  had  been  promoted  in  terms  of  the  

revised promotion policy, would still be governed  

by  the  Settlements  arrived  at  between  the  

Management and the Unions, since they were covered  

by  the  same  prior  to  their  promotion  to  the  

Executive cadre.   

48. Another question which calls for our attention  

is with regard to the merger of Cabin Crew effected  

in  1996,  giving  rise  to  the  other  disputed  

questions relating to interchangeability of duties  

between Flight Pursers and Air Hostesses.  It may  

be indicated that during the course of the hearing,  

Mr.  Pramod  B.  Agarwala  urged  that  the  Appellant  

Association was mainly concerned with the status of

                                                                  65

In-Flight Supervisors prior to the merger of cadres  

in 1996.  In deciding the aforesaid questions, this  

Court  will  have  to  take  into  consideration  the  

decisions rendered in Nergesh Meerza’s case (supra)  

and Yeshaswinee Merchant’s case (supra), although,  

strictly speaking, we are more concerned with the  

decision taken in terms of Section 9 of the 1994  

Act,  to  bring  about  a  parity  in  the  service  

conditions  of  both  Flight  Pursers  and  Air  

Hostesses, both at the level of workmen and also  

the Executive cadre.  While the Agreements are not  

altered or vary to any large extent, what has been  

done is to iron out the differences on account of  

the revised promotion policy, which exempted some  

of the workmen, who had been transformed to the  

category of Executive from the ambit of the said  

Settlements.  It is apparent from a reading of both  

the judgments delivered in  Nergesh Meerza’s case  

and Yeshaswinee Merchant’s case that the same were

                                                                  66

rendered in the context of bringing parity between  

the cadre of In-Flight Supervisors and the cadre of  

Air Hostesses.  It is, in fact, the prerogative of  

the Management to place an employee in a position  

where he would be able to contribute the most to  

the Company.  Hence, notwithstanding the decision  

in  Nergesh  Meerza’s  case  and  in  Yeshaswinee  

Merchant’s case, the Air India was at liberty to  

adopt  the  revised  promotion  policy  which  was  

intended to benefit all the employees.

49. As  indicated  hereinbefore,  Mr.  Pramod  B.  

Agarwala,  representing  the  Appellant  Association,  

submitted that the appellants were not concerned  

with the post-revised promotion policy, but with  

the  separate  cadre  of  In-Flight  Pursers,  as  

distinct  from  the  cadre  of  Air  Hostesses,  with  

regard  to  their  channel  of  promotion.   We  are  

inclined to agree with Mr. Agarwala’s submissions

                                                                  67

that prior to 1997, there was a category of Cabin  

Crew referred to as In-Flight Supervisors, which  

was confined to In-Flight Pursers alone and did not  

concern the Air Hostesses.  However, we are unable  

to  agree  with  Mr.  Agarwala’s  submissions  with  

regard  to  treating  the  duties  discharged  by  In-

Flight  Supervisors  to  indicate  that  “In-Flight  

Supervisor” was a separate post.  We are inclined  

to accept the submissions made on behalf of Air  

India  that  the  duties  discharged  by  persons  

designated as In-Flight Supervisors did not create  

any separate post and the post remained that of In-

Flight Pursers.   

50. Accordingly,  we  are  unable  to  accept  the  

further  submissions  made  on  behalf  of  the  

appellants that they had been discriminated against  

in any way on account of the decision in  Nergesh  

Meerza’s case and Yeshaswinee Merchant’s case.  As

                                                                  68

was  observed  by  this  Court  in  Inderpreet  Singh  

Kahlon & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. {(2006) 11  

SCC 356], it is well-settled that a decision is an  

authority  for  what  it  decides  and  not  what  can  

logically  be  deduced  therefrom.   Further,  it  is  

also well-settled that the ratio of a case must be  

understood  having  regard  to  the  fact  situation  

obtaining  therein.   The  position  since  the  

decisions rendered in Nergesh Meerza’s case and in  

Yeshaswinee  Merchant’s  case,  underwent  a  change  

with the adoption of the revised promotion policy  

agreed to between the parties and which replaced  

all  the  earlier  agreements.   In  our  view,  the  

Management  of  Air  India  was  always  entitled  to  

alter its policies with regard to their workmen,  

subject  to  the  consensus  arrived  at  between  the  

parties in supersession of all previous agreements.  

We are also unable to accept the further submission  

made on behalf of the appellants that those workmen

                                                                  69

who  had  been  promoted  to  the  Executive  category  

would continue to be governed by the Settlements  

arrived  at  when  they  were  workmen  and  were  

represented by the Association.  In our view, once  

an employee is placed in the Executive cadre, he  

ceases  to  be  a  workman  and  also  ceases  to  be  

governed  by  Settlements  arrived  at  between  the  

Management and the workmen through the concerned  

Trade Union.  It is not a question of an attempt  

made  by  such  employees  to  wriggle  out  of  the  

Settlements  which  had  been  arrived  at  prior  to  

their elevation to the Executive cadre, which, by  

operation of law, cease to have any binding force  

on the employee so promoted by the Management.   

51. We are not, therefore, inclined to interfere  

with  the  orders  passed  in  the  several  writ  

petitions, out of which the present appeals arise,  

and  the  same  are,  accordingly,  dismissed.   All

                                                                  70

connected  applications,  if  any,  will  also  stand  

disposed of by this order.

52. However,  having  regard  to  the  facts  of  the  

case, the parties will bear their own expenses.  

…………………………………………J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)

…………………………………………J. (CYRIAC JOSEPH)

New Delhi Dated: 17.11.2011