SHEELA JOSHI Vs. INDIAN AIRLINES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The appellants are working as Air Hostesses with respondent/Indian Airlines (hereinafter referred to as the Airlines). They were initially appointed as trainee Air Hostesses on certain terms and conditions as contained in the appointment letter. Clause 8 of the letter provided that they will be governed by the Indian Airlines Service Regulations applicable to the Flying Crew and Standing Orders concerning discipline and appeals as framed/amended by the Indian Airlines from time to time. Clause 9 of the letter provided that during the period of training and on appointment as Air Hostesses their services are liable to be terminated under the following circumstances in the event of your getting married before the specified period failed to maintain the vision without glasses do not maintain weight within the prescribed limitdevelop air sickness.

(3.) During their service the weight requirements were prescribed by the respondent-Indian Airlines at various times. A number of circulars were issued. All these circulars indicated the range of weight to be maintained by the Air Hostesses. There was no discretion and relaxation of weight from 1981 to 1987. For the first time on 4.11.1987, in the circular issued by the respondent, it is provided that if the crew member's weight exceeded 10% of the outer limit prescribed, he or she should be taken off flying duties and treated on leave or leave without pay till he/she attains the standard weight. However, relaxations in cases of flying over weight were subsequently allowed by various other circulars. At the same time, the grace in the quantity of over weight was also being gradually reduced. The other condition with regard to being taken off flying duties was maintained. But on 4.5.2006 the respondent withdrew even the 3 kgs. grace in weight limit with effect from 15.6.2006. It was enforced from 1.7.2006. The circular dated 4.5.2006 was challenged by the appellants by filing four separate writ petitions. All the writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge by a common judgment dated 31.5.2007. The learned Single Judge noticed that the Air Hostesses were supposed to keep their body weight within the minimum and the maximum prescribed limits. This was known to the appellants, all along. It was a condition of their appointment. They had knowingly and willingly accepted the same. Therefore, this condition fructified to consensual contract between the parties. Earlier the condition with regard to being over weight was not being strictly enforced. Now merely because concessions had been withdrawn the appellants could hardly make a grievance of the same. According to the learned Single Judge by virtue of Clause 9 of the appointment letter the services of the appellants could have been terminated in the event of their not maintaining body weight as per the weight chart. The learned Single Judge also observed that the appellants had accepted all the earlier circulars as well as the grace of over weight upto 10 kgms. Therefore they had no justification to challenge the circular dated 4.5.2006. With these observations the writ petitions were dismissed.