Vodafone International Holding v UOI
- 2022-02-16
Citation: AIR 1981 SC 1829
Court : Supreme Court of India
Facts of the case: The case was result of Regulations 46 and 47 of the Air India Employees Service Regulations which created a significant amount of disparity between the pay and promotional avenues of male and female in-flight cabin crew. It was brought forth that under Regulation 46, while the retirement age for Flight Pursers ( male cabin crew) was 58, Air Hostesses (female cabin crew) were required to retire under three circumstances: (1) upon reaching 35 years of age, (2) upon getting married, or (3) upon first pregnancy. This case went through different levels of litigation. The regulations were upheld in the tribunals after observing factors such as “young and attractive” air hostesses are necessary to deal with temperamental passengers. Thereafter the case reached the Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of the regulations.
Issue :.
Judgment: On the question of said regulations being violative of Article 14, the court asserted that article 14 only forbids against hostile discrimination and not against reasonable classification. To substantiate this aspect, this judgment relies on a litany of previous judgments which state that treating equal and unequal’s differently does not amount to hostile discrimination. So, the court came to the conclusion that Air Flight Pursers and Air Hostesses formed different classes (in service law terminology, separate “cadres”) as they had different recruitment conditions and different promotional avenues. Therefore, that the matter in question is not violative of Article 14. The assessment was made on the basis of reasonable and intelligible differentia.
Furthermore, the Court examines a secondary line of argument, which purports that these regulations are on an arbitrary and unreasonable basis (by making a classification on the basis of sex) and thus by extension are ultravires to Article 14. To examine said aspect the Court states that while Article 16(2) purports that no discrimination should be made only on the ground of sex, however it never prohibits the state from discriminating on the grounds of sex and other considerations (as asserted in the case of Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. The State of Bombay and Husseinbhoy Laljee. With this basis, the Court rejected the violation of Article 16.
As for the third contention on the subject of termination, the court vehemently opposed the arguments put forth by the respondents. Supreme Court struck down the Air India and Indian Airlines Regulations on the retirement and pregnancy bar on the services of air hostesses as unconstitutional on the ground that the conditions laid down therein were entirely unreasonable and arbitrary. The Regulation on termination was found to be clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was noted that having taken in service and after having utilised her services for four years to terminate her service if she becomes pregnant amounts to compelling the air hostess not to have any children and thus interfering with the ordinary course of human nature was found to be inherently wrong.
As for the question of discretionary powers conferred on the managing director, the Regulation was found to be excessive delegation by the court. The option to continue in service may be exercised in favour of one Air hostess and not in favour of the other at the mercy of Director was found to be violation of Article 14.
The importance of the judgment is largely because this was not only the fisrt de facto case of sexual discrimination at the workplace but also an important law that addressed the discriminatory practices against women of the country. Though there are certain aspects of the case holding the patriarchal norms and following certain sexist perspectives, striking down the regulation on termination made a huge impact on women in the country.
