# 15 (AODL.) S.C.R. 843 AIR INDIA CABIN CREW ASSN. & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2011] 15 S.C.R. 843
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2011-11-17
- **Case number:** CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9857-9861 OF 2011
- **Bench:** Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/15-aodl-s-c-r-843-air-india-cabin-crew-assn-ors-v-union-of-india-ors-27383
- **Pages:** 34

## Headnote

Service Law - Conditions of Service - Alteration of,
permissibility -
Air India Cabin crew -
Whether the
management of Air India was entitled to alter the service
C
conditions of Flight Pursers and Air Hostesses, despite
several bilateral agreements arrived at between Air India and
its workmen represented by the Air lnqia Cabin Crew
Association, and the Executive cadre of In-Flight Pursers and
Air Hostesses - Held: It is, in fact, the prerogative of the
O
Management to place an employee in a position where he
would pe able to contribute the most to the Company - Hence,
the Air India was at liberty to adopt the revised promotion
policy which was intended to benefit all the employees - The
Management of Air India was always entitled to alter its E
policies with regard to their workmen, subject to the consensus
arrived at between the parties in supersession of all previous
agreements - Air Corporation (Transfer of Undertakings and
Repeal) Act, 1994 - Labour Law.
Labour Law - Promotion of workman to executive cadre
F
- Effect of - Held: Once an employee is placed in the
Executive cadre, he ceases to be a workman and a/so ceases
to be governed by Settlements arrived at between the
Management and the workmen through the concerned Trade
Union - Such Settlements by operation of law, cease to have G
any binding force on the employee so promot~d by the
Management - Service Law.
Precedents - Ratio decidendi - Held: A decision is an
843
H
844
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.} S.C.R
A authority for what it decides and not what can logically be
deduced therefrom - Further, the ratio of a case must be·
understood having regard to the fact situation obtaining
therein.
8
The questions that arose for consideration in the
instant appeals were: 1) Whether the promotional
avenues and other terms of 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
C particular, Section 8 thereof and also in view of the
judgments of this Court in the cases of Nergesh Meerza
and Yeshaswinee Merchant, along with the various
agreements and settlement arrived at between the parties
and 2) Wheth,er in the circumstances indicated, a policy
D 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
E relating to promotion which had vested in Assistant Flight
Pursers belonging to the pre-1997 cadre.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. From the submissions made on behalf of
F 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
G by the Air India Cabin Crew Association, and the
Executive cadre of In-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
H Flight Pursers who had been promoted in terms of the
AIR INDIA CABIN CREW ASSN. & ORS. v. UNION OF 845
INDIA & ORS.
revised promotion policy, would still be governed by the . A
Settlements arrived at between the Management and the
Unions, since they were covered by the same prior to their
promotion to the Executive cadre. Another question
which calls for attention is with regard to the merger of
Cabin Crew effected in 1996, giving rise to the other 8
disputed questions relating to interchangeability of duties
between Flight Pursers and Air Hostesses. During the
course of the hearing, it was urged that the Appellant
Association was mainly concerned with the status of InFlight Supervisors

## Text

_Characters 0–39,849 of 70,977. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39849 for what follows._

[2011] 15 (AODL.) S.C.R. 843
AIR INDIA CABIN CREW ASSN. & ORS.
A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9857-9861 OF 2011)
NOVEMBER 17, 2011
B
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]
Service Law - Conditions of Service - Alteration of,
permissibility -
Air India Cabin crew -
Whether the
management of Air India was entitled to alter the service
C
conditions of Flight Pursers and Air Hostesses, despite
several bilateral agreements arrived at between Air India and
its workmen represented by the Air lnqia Cabin Crew
Association, and the Executive cadre of In-Flight Pursers and
Air Hostesses - Held: It is, in fact, the prerogative of the
O
Management to place an employee in a position where he
would pe able to contribute the most to the Company - Hence,
the Air India was at liberty to adopt the revised promotion
policy which was intended to benefit all the employees - The
Management of Air India was always entitled to alter its E
policies with regard to their workmen, subject to the consensus
arrived at between the parties in supersession of all previous
agreements - Air Corporation (Transfer of Undertakings and
Repeal) Act, 1994 - Labour Law.
Labour Law - Promotion of workman to executive cadre
F
- Effect of - Held: Once an employee is placed in the
Executive cadre, he ceases to be a workman and a/so ceases
to be governed by Settlements arrived at between the
Management and the workmen through the concerned Trade
Union - Such Settlements by operation of law, cease to have G
any binding force on the employee so promot~d by the
Management - Service Law.
Precedents - Ratio decidendi - Held: A decision is an
843
H
844
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.} S.C.R
A authority for what it decides and not what can logically be
deduced therefrom - Further, the ratio of a case must be·
understood having regard to the fact situation obtaining
therein.
8
The questions that arose for consideration in the
instant appeals were: 1) Whether the promotional
avenues and other terms of 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
C particular, Section 8 thereof and also in view of the
judgments of this Court in the cases of Nergesh Meerza
and Yeshaswinee Merchant, along with the various
agreements and settlement arrived at between the parties
and 2) Wheth,er in the circumstances indicated, a policy
D 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
E relating to promotion which had vested in Assistant Flight
Pursers belonging to the pre-1997 cadre.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. From the submissions made on behalf of
F 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
G by the Air India Cabin Crew Association, and the
Executive cadre of In-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
H Flight Pursers who had been promoted in terms of the
AIR INDIA CABIN CREW ASSN. & ORS. v. UNION OF 845
INDIA & ORS.
revised promotion policy, would still be governed by the . A
Settlements arrived at between the Management and the
Unions, since they were covered by the same prior to their
promotion to the Executive cadre. Another question
which calls for attention is with regard to the merger of
Cabin Crew effected in 1996, giving rise to the other 8
disputed questions relating to interchangeability of duties
between Flight Pursers and Air Hostesses. During the
course of the hearing, it was urged that the Appellant
Association was mainly concerned with the status of InFlight Supervisors prior to the merger of cadres in 1996.
C
In deciding the aforesaid questions, this Court will have
to take into consideration the decisions rendered in
Nergesh Meerza's case and Yeshaswinee Merchant's
case, although, strictly speaking, this Court is more
concerned with the decision taken in terms of Section 9
of the Air Corporation (Transfer of Undertakings and
D
Repeal) Act, 1994, 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
E
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. [Paras 47, 48] [874-C-H; 875-AB]
F
1'.2. 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
rendered in the context of bringing parity between the
G
. cadre of In-Flight Supervisors and the cadre of Air
H.ostesses. It is, in fact, the prerogative of ~he
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
H
846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 15 (ADDL) S.C.R.
A 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. [Para
48] [875-B-D]
1.3. It was contended on behalf of the Appellant
B Association 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.
This Court is inclined to agree with submissions on
C behalf of the appellant-association that prior to 1997,
there was a category of Cabin Crew referred to as· InFlight Supervisors, which was confined to In-Flight
Pursers alone and did not concern the Air Hostesses.
However, this Court is unable to agree with the
D submissions on behalf of the appellant-association with
regard to treating the duties discharged by In-Flight
Supervisors to indicate that "In-Flight Supervisor" was a
separate post. This Court is inclined to accept the
submissions made on behalf of Air India that the duties
E discharged by persons designated as In-Flight
Supervisors did not create any separate post and the
post remained that of In-Flight Pursers. [Para 49] [875-0G]
1.4. Accordingly, this Court is un2ble to accept the
F 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. It is well-settled that a
decision is an authority for what it decides and not what
G 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,
H underwent a change with the adoption of the, te\Vised
'
AIR INDIA CABIN CREW ASSN. & ORS. v. UNION OF 847
INDIA & ORS.
promotion policy agreed to between the parties and A
which replaced all the earlier agreements. 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. This Court is B
also unable to accept. the further submission made on
behalf of the appellants that those workmen 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. C
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. Such
Settlements by operation of law, cease to have any o
binding force on the employee so promoted by the
Management. [Para 50] [875-H; 876-A-F]
Air India v. Nergesh Meerza & Ors. (1981) 4 SCC 335:
1982 (1) SCR 438 and Air India Cabin Crew Association. Vs.
Yeshawinee Merchant & Ors. (2003) 6 SCC 277: 2003 (1)
E
Suppl. SCR 455 - referred to.
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. KSRTC
Staff & Workers' Federation & Anr. (1999) 2 SCC 687: 1999
(1) SCR 733 - cited.
F
lnderpreet Singh Kah/on & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.
(2006) 11 sec 356: 2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 772 - relied on.
Case Law Reference:
1982 (1) SCR 438
referred to
2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 455 referred to
1999 (1) SCR 733
cited
2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 772 relied on
Para 3
Para 3
Para 33
Para 50
G
H
·A
B
848
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
9857-9861 of 2011.
From the Judgment & Order dated 8.10.2007 of the High
Court of Delhi in WP (C) No. 983-987 of 2006.
WITH
C.A. Nos. 9862-9865 & 9866-9871 of 2011.
Gaurab Banerjee, H.P. Rawal, ASG, C.U. Singh, Pramod
c B. Agarwala, Praveena Gautam, Rajan Bharti, Sanjoy Ghose,
Anitha Shenoy, Siddharth Aggarwal, Manali Sunghal, Stuti
Gujral, Abhijat P. Medh, Praveen Jain, T.S. Sidhu, Mukesh
Kumar, Sahil Tagotra, Vyom Shah, S.A. Haseeb, Ravi Kini,
Vikas Soni (for M.V. Kini & Associates), Jawahar Raja, Mayur
D Suresh P. Ramesh Kumar, Dhawal Mehtortra, Raja! Kumar,
Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, S. Wasim A. Quadri, Saima
Bakshi, Zadi Ali, M.P. Jha for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
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
F 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.
G
3. The common issue in all these matters is whether the
promotional avenues and other terms of service of the pre-1997
cadre of Assistant Flight Pursers could be changed to their
prejudice despite the provisions of the Air Corporation (Transfer
H of Undertakings and Repeal) Act, 1994 and, in particular,
AIR INDIA CABIN CREW ASSN. & ORS. v. UNION OF 849
IND1A & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
Section 8 thereof and also in view of the judgments of this Court A
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,
B
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 relating to C
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 0
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,
E
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
F
Regulations and raising certain other questions of law. Air India,
being the Respondent No.1 therein, moved a transfer petition,
being Transfer Case No.3 of 1.981, 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 · G
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
H
850
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 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
B conditions.
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
c 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
0 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
E in Indian Airlines Limited and the undertaking of Air India in Air
India Limited. 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
F 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
G 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
H as he would have held under the Corporation if its undertaking
.
.
AIR INDIA CABIN CREW ASSN. & ORS. v. UNION OF 851
INDIA & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
had not vested in the Company, with the option of not becoming
A
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
B
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
C
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 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
D
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
E
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.
F
8. Subsequently, on 5th June, 1997, a settlement was
arrived at between the appellants and Air India that all earlier
settlements, awards, past practices, record notes and
understandings arrived at between the erstwhile Corporation
G
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
H
852
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 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
B 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 majority of whom
C 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
D 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
E 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 Hostesses of Air India, the
F 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
G 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
H of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976. It was further held that
AIR INDIA CABIN CREW ASSN. & ORS. v. UNION OF 853
INDIA & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
the two cadres of male and female Cabin Crew members
A
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 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,
B
as was also observed in Yeshaswinee Merchant's case (supra).
According to the appellants, the Union of India, by its directive· C
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
D
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 the male Cabin Crew,
the issue of seniority and promotion would have to be
addressed by the Department so that there was no resentment
E
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
F
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 G
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 re-emphasized that the two cadres
were not being merged arid the service conditions of the male
H
854
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 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
8
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
C 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 In-Flight
Supervisor along with the Executive Male Cabin Crew. It was,
D 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
E 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)
F 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 the Division Bench
G 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
H appellant Association filed its Rejoinder Affidavit to the Counter
AIR INDIA CABIN CREW ASSN. & ORS. v. UNION OF 855
INDIA & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
Affidavits filed by the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and denied A
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 B
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 Division Bench of the High
Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellant
Association. By the said judgment, the Division Bench of the c
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 D
accepted. More importantly, for our purpose in these cases, the
Division Bench of the High Court held that the expression "InFlight 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
E
against the said decision of the Division Bench of the High
Court of Delhi.
14. Appearing for the appellant Association imd the other
appellants in SLP(C)Nos.20668-20672 of 2007 (Now appeals),
F
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 G
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 th.e Cabin Crew,
such as Air Hostess and Flight Purser cadres. He submitted
that the said Association represented more than 1480 Cabin
H
856
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A Crew in Air India and more than 350 of their members were
pre-1997 Air Hostesses and, approximately, 360 were pre1997 Flight Pursers. The Executive Cabin Crew members are
represented by the Air India Officers Association, as also the
Air India Executive Cabin Crew Association. It was contended
B 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
C India as facilitating the breach of binding Settlements,
Agreements and Record Notes. The management of Air India
also appear5 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
D Yeshaswinee Merchant's case (supra). Mr. Agarwala
submitted that the decision in these appeals would depend on
the answers to the following questions :
E
F
G
H
(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?
16. Referring to the judgment of the High Court, Mr.
Agarwala submitted that three issues were framed for
adjudication, namely,
AIR INDIA CABIN CREW ASSN. & ORS. v. UNION OF 857
INDJA & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
(i)
What is the effect of the judgments of the Supreme
A
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
B
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?
(iii)
Are the impugned circulars and orders rendered
C
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 agraements?
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.
D
18. Mr. Agarwala submitted that in the two cases referred
E
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
clear that Air Hostesses formed a separate category from that
of Air Flight Pursers, having different grades, different
F
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
G
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
H
858
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 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 entered into by Air India with the appellant
Association in Yeshaswinee Merchant's case and once such
B 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
C 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 ·
D an administrative order, on 27th December, 2005, Air India
was not only seeking to nullify the judgments of this Court, but
also the binding settlements which had been arrived at between
the parties.
E
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
F 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
G 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 promotional avenue and/or any
change in their service conditions could only be brought about
through a bilateral settlemenfwith thEμll5pellant Association. Mr.
H Agarwala pointed out that in Nergesh Meerza's case this Court
AIR INDIA CABIN CREW ASSN. & ORS. v. UNION OF 859
INDIA & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
had observed that it was unable to understand how the A
· 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 B
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 c
of Deputy Chief Air Hostess in order to 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 D
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 E
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
F
of relevance to the facts of this case, except for paragraph 6 of
the Note which 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 G
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 InFlight service, which, it was agreed, would be carried out as H
860
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 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 exjstence.
8
23: The aforesaid Agreement was followed by a policy
adopted by .Air India for redesignation, scales of pay and
changes in promotion policy for Executive Cabin Crew of InFlight Services Depanwent. The same was contained in a letter
dated 24th May, 1.996, writtert by'"the Director, H.R.D., to the
C 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. Tne 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
D 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
E: General Managers-IFS. It was made clear that such
redesignation was for Administrative/ Executive ground
assignments and, that the existing functional designations of InFlight Supervisor and Air Hostess would continue, whilst on
flight duties, in accordance with the prevailing practices. The
F 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.
G
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
H Purser, Check Flight Purser, Additional Senior Check Flight
AIR INDIA CABIN CREW ASSN. & ORS. v. UNION OF 861
INDIA & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
'
Purser, Senior Check Flight Purser, Air Hostess, Senior Air A
Hostess, Check Air Hostess, 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 B
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 c
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 D
respect of matters specifically dealt with or 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 E
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 F
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 l;l[OVided that G
the existing category of Cabin Crew on being 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, H
862
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 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
B 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.
26. Mr. Agarwala submitted that this Court had taken into
C 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.
D
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
E 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 tbe directive of 21st
F November, 2003, issued by the Government under Section 9
of the 1994 Act, the law as declared by this Court in
Yeshaswinee Merchant's case could be unsettled, Mr.
Agarwala's response was to the contrary.