IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Writ Petition (C) Nos. 12875-83 of 2006

31.05.2007

Date of Decision : May 31 , 2007


Sheela Joshi and Ors. ??. . .
Petitioner
Through Mr. Arvind K. Sharma, Advocate

Versus
Indian Airlines Ltd. ??? Respondent
Through Mr. Gopal Subramaniam Sr. Advocate
with Ms. Veronica Mohan and Mr. Subhru ayal,
Advocates


WITH

Writ Petition (C) Nos. 14443-44 of 2006



Shivani Mathur and Anr. ??. . .
Petitioner
Through Mr. Arvind K. Sharma, Advocate

Versus
Indian Airlines Ltd. ??? Respondent
Through Mr. Gopal Subramaniam Sr. Advocate
with Ms. Veronica Mohan and Mr. Subhru
Sayal, Advocates


WITH

Writ Petition (C) No. 17318 of 2006


Anne Patricia Dyook ??. . . Petitioner
Through Mr. Arvind K. Sharma, Advocate

Versus
Indian Airlines Ltd. ??? Respondent
Through Mr. Gopal Subramaniam Sr. Advocate
with Ms. Veronica Mohan and Mr. Subhru Sayal,
Advocates

and

WITH

Writ Petition (C) No. 1365 of 2007

Kiran Chaudhary ??. . . Petitioner
Through Mr. Arvind K. Sharma, Advocate

Versus
Indian Airlines Ltd. ??? Respondent
Through Mr. Gopal Subramaniam Sr. Advocate
with Ms. Veronica Mohan and Mr. Subhru Sayal,
Advocates

CORAM:
HON?BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA

1.Whether Reporters of the Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

REKHA SHARMA, J.

The Air Hostesses in the employment of Indian Airlines are supposed to
maintain their body weight within limits prescribed in the weight charts issued
from time to time. The petitioners having busted those charts have been grounded
and have been told that till such time they knock off the extra weight they will
be treated on leave if there is any to their credit or otherwise on ?leave
without pay?. The petitioners say that this order is unreasonable, unfair,
without sanction of law and allege that it is contrary to the Indian Airlines
Employees Service Regulations. They also view it as an affront to their
dignity, honour and womanhood.


The respondent feels differently. It says that the job profile of the Air
Hostesses is such that it requires of them to maintain certain standard of
weight. Keeping that in view their weight was made a condition of their
appointment and the order issued are not only in consonance with the terms of
their appointment but have also been necessitated to meet the challenges of a
competitive market in the air traffic business of which hospitality is an
integral part. As per the Airlines the directions requiring the Air Hostesses
to maintain body weight standards have been in place since long and having been
accepted, any challenge to the same now is not only belated but unwarranted.
Having provided a bird?s eye view of the issue involved let me proceed
with the details.
The petitioners have preferred four writ petitions. Since a common
question has been raised in all the petitions, Writ Petition No. 12875-83 of
2006 filed by Ms. Sheila Joshi and others shall be treated as the lead case.
The petitioners have been working as Cabin crew with the Indian Airlines Ltd.
since 1982 in the Inflight Service Department except petitioner in writ petition
(C) No. 17318/06 who is working in the Southern Region. Initially they were
offered appointments as Trainee Air Hostesses on certain terms and conditions of
which clauses 8 and 9 are important. They read as under :-
8. While undergoing Training in the Indian Airlines and the appointment as
Air-Hostesses, you 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 Indian Airlines from time to time.
9. During the training period and on appointment as Air Hostesses, your
services are liable to be terminated under the following circumstances
I) in the event of your getting married before the specified period .
II) If you (a) fail to maintain vision without Glasses
(b) do not maintain weight within the prescribed limits
( c) develop air sickness.
The above offer of appointment, interalia, containing the aforesaid terms
and conditions was accepted by the Air Hostesses and in token of their
acceptance they appended their signatures thereon. On successful completion of
their training they were appointed on regular basis and were issued fresh
appointment letters. Admittedly, those appointment letters also contained
the aforesaid terms and conditions. A sample copy of the appointment letter
has been filed by the Indian Airlines in WP(C) No. 1365/07 by Ms. Kiran
Chauhdary Vs. Indian Airlines. At the time of their appointment, a weight
chart issued in the year 1981 was in existence. It provided for the minimum
and the maximum weight. It was prepared with reference to age and height.
The Air Hostesses were supposed to adhere to the said chart and keep their body
weight within the minimum and the maximum limit laid down therein. It so
happened that on November 4, 1987 the Airlines issued a circular stating therein
that the revised height and weight chart was under preparation by the Chief
Medical Officer and that pending finalization of the same Cabin Crew should be
subjected to weight check twice a year. It also provided that those who were
found exceeding the laid down standards upto 10% would be given a letter to
reduce their weight to standard weight within a specified period and if after
the expiry of that period the Cabin Crew failed to come to the standard body
weight he or she should be taken off flying and treated on leave or leave
without pay if no leave was due till she or he attained the standard weight.
It further provided that in cases where the excess weight was over 10% of the
standard weight such Cabin Crew should be taken off flight with immediate effect
and given a letter to reduce the standard weight by a specified period. On
June 4,1990 the Airlines issued a Memo indicating the names of four members of
the cabin crew including that of the petitioner Sheila Joshi who were found
to be in excess of weight over and above the 10% grace. They were advised to
reduce their weight by 1 kg per week and report to Additional Chief Medical


Officer, IA Palam periodically for their height and weight check. However, no
order was issued grounding them. Thereafter, on December 25,1990 another
Circular was issued indicating the names of the Air Hostesses who were found
overweight. In this circular also the name of petitioner Sheila Joshi appeared
and besides her, the names of petitioners Ms. Kusum Chakrobarty and Kiran
Choudhary also figured. All the three were found to be over-weight by 4.5 kgs,
6kgs and 1.5 kgs respectively. In the meanwhile on September 17, 1991 came
the revised height and weight chart. It was circulated to all the members of
the Cabin Crew. It laid down weight limits for Air Hostesses between the age
group of 19 and 36 years and above with reference to their height. It was
mentioned at the foot of the circular that ?Marriage, child bearing and raised
superannuation age have been taken into consideration while making this height
and weight chart. No additional allowance is therefore admissible. ?
However, on June 6, 1996, a Circular was issued stating that the cabin crew who
were to be grounded due to overweight by more than 10 kgs were to be treated
on leave upto the time they reduce their weight according to the specified
limits and in case their leave stood exhausted they were to be treated on leave
without pay. Later 10 kgs was brought down to 7 kgs by a circular dated
November 13/17, 1998, then to 5 kgs by circular dated May 20, 1999, to 4 kgs
by circular dated January 3, 2000, to 3 kgs by circular dated October 31st 2000
and ultimately on May 4,2006 even the allowance of 3 kgs was withdrawn and was
made effective from June 15,2006. All cabin crew were advised to adhere to the
height and weight norm as laid down for them. It is this circular of May
4,2006 which has been made the basis by the petitioners to approach this court.
One thing which emerges from the above narration of facts is that right
from the day of their appointment, it was known to the petitioners that they
were to maintain body weight standards as laid down by the Airlines from time to
time. It was made a condition of their appointment and they had knowingly and
willingly accepted the same. Therefore, this condition fructified into a
consensual contract between the parties. True, in the past, this condition of
their contract was not enforced with all its rigour. Rather, one notices soft
peddling and in no case action in terms of the contract was ever taken. The
violators were simply grounded and were not paid their salaries if there was no
leave to their credit.
Should the petitioners make a grievance merely because the concessions
which they were enjoying have been withdrawn and they have been asked to
strictly adhere to the body weight chart in keeping with their appointment
letters?
The petitioners, in my view have no case. Their appointment letter
proves to be their nemesis. They agreed to the terms contained therein. They
are in the employment of the Airlines from 1980-82. They were being subjected
to six-monthly height and weight check. The Circulars were being issued from
time to time asking the Cabin Crew to keep their weight within the prescribed
limits and if they were found in excess of the weight some of them at times were
grounded. It is not for the first time on May 4, 2006 that they were asked to
comply with the weight chart. Therefore, they cannot now raise a grouse on
that account. Also, it is not for the first time that they have been told that
in case of grounding they will not be paid their salaries in case there is no
leave to their credit. They were told about this way back on November 4, 1987
when, as noticed above, a Circular to that effect was issued. They did not
object to it then. What new has happened now that they have come to the Court
seeking quashing of Circular of May 4, 2006 and also the direction that they
will not be paid their salary during the period of grounding if they do not have
leave to their credit?
It was stated that clause 9 of the Appointment Letter of
the petitioners provided that they were to be governed by the Indian Airlines
Flying Crew Service Regulations and as per Regulation No. 12 of the same


members of the Flying Crew were to be retained in the service of the company
only if they remained medically fit for flying duties. It was thus sought to
be contended that if a member of the Cabin Crew was found to be medically fit he
or she could not be grounded or deprive of his salary merely on account of being
over-weight. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were found to be
medically fit.
It is true that Regulation No. 12 provided that a member of the Cabin
Crew was to be retained in service so long as he was medically fit but equally
true is the fact that the appointment letter also provided that if they did not
maintain the weight within the prescribed limits their services were liable to
be terminated. This clause in the appointment letter was in addition and not
in derogation to the clause that their appointment was to be governed by the
Indian Airlines Service Regulation. In this view of the matter, the above
said Regulation does not wash away the terms of condition found in the letter of
appointment. The petitioners may have been found to be medically fit but the
weight check which is undertaken bi-annually has its genesis to the clause in
the Appointment Letter . Therefore, if the weight is not found to be in accord
with the required limit, the consequences as laid down in the Appointment Letter
flow.
It was contended by the learned counsel for the Indian Airlines and in my
view rightly that clause 9 of the Appointment Letter of the petitioners
empowered them to remove them from service in the event of their not maintaining
body weight as per the weight chart yet it never took the extreme step of
removing them from service. The Airlines, it is stated, was more than
indulgent towards them. They were simply being warned from time to time to
bring down their weight and were also given time to do so. It was stated that
this ?benevolent approach? was adopted to enable the defaulting members of the
Cabin Crew to comply with the norms. The Circulars which contained these
?benevolent measures? were agreed to and acted upon by the members of the Cabin
Crew. As a matter of fact even as per the impugned Circular of May 4, 2006 no
action in terms of the appointment letter has been taken nor does it indicate
that any such action is in contemplation. Hence, the action of grounding on
account of being over-weight and non-payment of salary in the event of no leave
to the credit of the Cabin Crew cannot be challenged at this distant point of
time apart from the fact that it was a condition of their appointment and they
had accepted it.
It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the Air Corporation
Act 1953 was repealed by the Air Corporation (Transfer of Undertaking and
Repeal) Act of 1994 and by virtue of Section 8 of the repealing Act the
employees of the Corporation as on the appointed day were to continue to enjoy
the same remuneration, same terms and conditions and the same obligations as
they enjoyed before coming into force of the repeal of the Air Corporation Act.
On the strength of Section 8, it was argued that by virtue of the Circular
issued on November 4, 1987 the flying Crew enjoyed the grace of 10% of the
weight over and above the standard weight as laid down. It was sought to be
contended that as after the Circular of November, 1987, no revised weight chart
was brought into existence till the repeal of the Air Corporation Act of 1953,
therefore, the grace of 10% continued to remain in force even after the coming
into force of the repealed Act and in view of Section 8 of the said Act the same
could not be withdrawn. It was also argued that after the coming into force of
the Air Corporation ( Transfer of Undertaking and Repeal) Act 1994 the Airlines
did not possess any power to issue Circulars with regard to weight charts as
that would have meant changing the terms and conditions of service which in view
of Section 8 of the repealed Act was not permissible.
I need not go into the question whether the Air Corporation Transfer of
Undertaking and Repeal Act took away the powers of the Airlines to issue
Circulars because the argument proceeds on the basis that Circulars issued prior


thereto alone would hold the ground. If that be so it is not understood how it
is the Circular of November 1987 which will apply and not the revised chart
which was issued in 1991. In any case the petitioners were quiet so long as
the grace of over weight upto 10 kgs was allowed and even till date do not find
fault with those circulars which were issued after the repeal Act but now when
no grace at all is being given and it has been completely withdrawn they are
questioning the authority of the Airlines to issue the Circulars. What does
this mean? It means that so long as it suited the petitioners the Airlines had
the authority to issue the Circulars and when the weight chart is being strictly
followed they are finding fault with it.
Lastly it is not without rationale that the flying Crew has been
subjected to certain standards of height and weight. Their job profile demands
it. The aircrafts fly at a very high altitude. Quite often emergency
situations arise because of air turbulence or on account of aircraft developing
snag. The Cabin Crew including the Air Hostess are expected to handle the
situation deftly, with alacrity and presence of mind . All this will be
possible only if the Cabin Crew possesses the highest order of physical and
mental fitness. And let us not forget that in this era of cut throat
competition no Airlines can afford to remain lax in any department whatsoever,
be it the personality of its crew members, their physical fitness in all
respects or the air worthiness of the air craft or in relation to other
facilities such as catering etc. If keeping in view this kind of job
performance the Air Hostesses are asked to battle their bulge, control their
girth and keep at desired level the affluence of their body weight as per the
norms, it is not understood how it is in any way unfair, unreasonable and
insulting to their womanhood. It is not the Air Hostesses alone which are put
to these rigours. The other Members of the flying crew are also required to
maintain a particular weight standard. If by preservance the snails could reach
the ark, why can?t these worthy ladies stand on and turn the scale.
For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the writ petitions, the
same are dismissed but without burdening further with costs.


May 31 , 2007. REKHA SHARMA, J.
g