AIR INDIA CABIN CREW ASSN. & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

               [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 In-
Flight 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-A-
B]                                                          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· In-
  Flight 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] [875-0-
   G]
       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          Para 3       G

 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 455 referred to              Para 3
 1999 (1) SCR 733            cited                Para 33
 2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 772 relied on                Para 50
                                                               H
     848    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

·A       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.
 B
                                 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.
                                                                     B
      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·   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 "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      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 pre-
  1997 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 :

           (a)   Whether the decision of this Court in Nergesh
E                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
F                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
G                June, 1997?
         16. Referring to the judgment of the High Court, Mr.
    Agarwala submitted that three issues were framed for
    adjudication, namely,
H
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?
                                                                  D
    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     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
                                                               Mr.
  through a bilateral settlemenfwith thEµll5pellant Association.
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 In-
 Flight 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.

           23: The aforesaid Agreement was followed by a policy
8
      adopted by .Air India for redesignation, scales of pay and
     changes in promotion policy for Executive Cabin Crew of In-
      Flight 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 In-
    Flight 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. 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
G 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
H contrary view could not be canvassed by the Government
AIR INDIA CABIN CREW ASSN. & ORS. v. UNION OF 863
        INDIA & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.)
authorities barely four months after the judgment of this Court,      A
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 of Air India to circumvent the judgments of this       B
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   C
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      D
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 unable to understand how the
Management could phase out a post available to the Air                E
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         F
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              G
  Association and submitted that the Appellant No.1, Kanwarjeet
  Singh, was himself a party in Yeshaswinee Merchant's ~se
· (supra). Learned counsel submitted that the appellants were all
  Assistant Flight Pursers, who also sought the same relief as
  was being sought by the Air India Cabin Crew Association. Mr.       H
     864    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


 A  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 aider
   passed by Air India on 18th December, 2003, directing the ln-
B Flight Services Department of Air lhdia 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
c  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
D 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
E m,iterial 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
  alt~red or abolished in any manner by Air India.

F       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 re,garding the legitimate interest of the appellants by which
G their avenues of promotion had been altered and their future
  job functions had been affected, without recot:rse to the lawful
  process of collective bargaining. It was P"inted out that in
   Yeshaswinee Merchant's case (supra), this Court had held that
  executives, who as workmen had entered into and benefited
H from the various industrial settlements, could not attempt to
 AIR INDIA CABIN CREW ASSN. & ORS. v. UNION OF865
         INDIA & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
· wriggle out of the same, merely on account of having received    A
  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 B
  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 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 C
  the condjtions of service which had been settled on the basis
  of binding settlem~nts and agreements. In support of his
  submissions, Mr. Ghose referred to the decision of this Court
  in Kamataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. KSRTC
  Staff & Workers' Federation & Anr. [(1999) 2 SCC 687], D
  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 E
  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 years, which
  was exigency based, should not be allowed to continue for 8
  years, since almost a thousand new Cabin Crew had been F
   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.        G
  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      H
    866    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

 A 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 the same was
    upheld in Yeshaswinee Merchant's case (supra). Accordingly,
B 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.
C 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
D 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 since the terms and conditions of service of
   the pre-1997 recruits had been fixed through negotiations and
E 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
F 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
G 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, illegal, arbitrary and in violation
  of the principles of res judicata and were, therefore, liable to
H be quashed.
AIR INDIA CABIN CREW ASSN. & ORS. v. UNION OF 867
        INDIA & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
     35. Mr. L. Nageshwara Rao, learned Senior Advocate, A
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 Yesh·aswinee
Merchant's case (supra) on the validity of the impugned orders B
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 . c
that all the three issues had been incorrectly answered by the
High Court.

     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 D
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 E
introduced by way of settlemept 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 F
conditions could be different. Accordingly, the flying age of Air
Hostesses from the Pre-1997 settlement period was fixed at
50 years, though the retirement age was 58 years. On the
question whether the position of In-Flight Supervisor wa, a job
function or a post, Mr. Rao submitted that the said ques~~ had G
been decided in Nergesh Meerza's case and it was fi'eld 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
                                                                   H
     868    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A 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
B arrived at a wrong conclusion and the impugned judgment was,
  therefore, liable to be set aside.

         38. The submissions made on behalf of the appellants in
   all these appeals were strongly opposed on behalf of the Union
C 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,
D 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
E 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 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
F 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
G 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
H between Air India a.nd the Association and on the same day, a
                                     r
AIR INDIA CABIN CREW ASSN. & ORS. v. UNION OF 869
        INDIA & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
promotion policy for Cabin Crew was also promulgated. This A
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 B
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, c
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 nature relating to the D
management of Air India and did not, therefore, att;act 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 E
the policy of standard force promotion to a lime 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 eli~\ble for the Career
Advancement Scheme.                                              F

     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 G
the 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 H
     870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

 A 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
 B 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
 c Supervisors and Air Hostesses would 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
D 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
E 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 office duties, as
F 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,
G 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
H Cabin Crew. Mr. Banerji submitted that the aforesaid Settlement
AIR INDIA'cABIN CREW ASSN. & ORS. v. UNION OF 871
        INDIA & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

and Promotion Policy superseded all the earlier Settlements             A
and hence the claim of the Appellants regarding the right of In-
Flight Pursers to pre-merger benefits was not tenable in law.

     41. Referring to the decision in Nargesh Meerza's case
(supra), Mr. Banerji contended that two cadres of In-Flight
                                                                        B
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                C
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               D
homes and families.

      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,            E
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             F
the matter in any manner including the terms and condit'lons 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 aAd
in Yeshaswinee Merchant's case. Mr. Banerji submitted that for          G
a long time there had been complaints with regard to the
discrimination in the service conditions of Air 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             H
     872    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


 A   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,
 B   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 practised against them and not to
C 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
D 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
E 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.
F      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
G 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
H Disputes Act, 1947, and their case was beyond the jurisdiction
 AIR INDIA CABIN CREW ASSN. & ORS. v. UNION OF 873
         INDIA & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
 of the Tribunal. The Tribunal also took note of the evidence that A
·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 duties could be insisted upon by the
  Management in emergencies, when a standby Crew of that B
 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 c
 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 D
  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 led to
  the new promotion policy for Cabin Crew on 5th June, 1997, E
  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 . F
  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 G
 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 there was no substance in the appeals
 filed since the revised promotion rules had been approved and H
     874    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R


 A   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
 B   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
C 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-Flight Pursers and
  Air Hostesses promoted to the Executive rank and given Grade
  29, which was the starting point of the Executive cadre. The
D 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
E 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
F 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 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
G 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
H
AIR INDIA CABIN CREW ASSN. & ORS. v. UNION OF 875
        INDIA & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
workmen and also the Executive cadre. While the Agreements A
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 ttie category of Executive from the ambit of the
said Settlements. It is apparent from a reading of both the B
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 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 c
 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.
                                                                   D
      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 E
 channel of promotion. We are inclined to agree with Mr.
Agarwala's submissions 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 F
 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 G
 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           H
     876    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


 A decision in Nergesh Meerza's case and Yeshaswinee
     Merchant's case. As was observed by this Court in lnderpreet
     Singh Kah/on & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. {(2006) 11
     sec 356], it is well-settled that a decision is an authority for
     what it Q.ecides and not what can logically be deduced
 B 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
c 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
0
    appellants that those workmen who had been promoted to the
    Executive category would continue to be governed by the
    Settlements arri•1ed 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
E 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,
F 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
G present appeals arise, and the same are, accordingly,
  dismissed. All 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.
H B.B.B.                                       Appeals dismissed.