http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: AIR INDIA AND ORS.ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: B.R.AGE AND ORS.ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/10/1995

BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) AGRAWAL, S.C. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  276            1995 SCC  (6) 359  JT 1995 (7)   217        1995 SCALE  (5)645

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                        J U D G M E N T B.P.JEEVAN REDDY.J.      Civil Appeal  Nos.325 and  551 of  1981  are  preferred against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court  allowing the writ petition filed by respondents, B.R.Age and others, and quashing the directions given by the Central Government  on July  23,1975 to Air India to provide reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the services under  the Corporation.  The directions were issued under Section  34(1) of  the Air Corporations Act, 1953. The directions  are  very  elaborate  in  nature,  the  sum  and substance whereof  is to  provide reservations in the matter of  appointments   or  posts   under  the  Corporation.  The respondents-writ petitioners  contended  before  the  Bombay High Court  that the  directions so given are ultravires the powers of the Central Government, not being within the ambit of Section  34(1) of  the said  Act. They submitted that the said directions  cannot also  be justified with reference to clause (4)  of Article  16 of  the Constitution  inasmuch as before giving  the said  directions, the  Central Government had not  formed the  requisite satisfaction that the members of Scheduled  Castes and Scheduled Tribes are not adequately represented in  the  services  under  the  Corporation.  The learned Judge  has quashed  the directions only on the first ground. He  did not  go into  the question  whether the said directions are  warranted by clause (4) of Article 16 of the Constitution. Civil  Appeal No.325  of 1981  is preferred by Air India  while Civil Appeal No.551 of 1981 is preferred by the employees  of Air  India belonging  to Scheduled Castes. The Union of India is supporting them in these appeals. Writ Petition (C)  Nos.145-148 of 1980 are filed under Article 32 of the  Constitution challenging the constitutional validity of  the   very  same   directions  issued   by  the  Central Government.      Section 34(1)  of the  Air Corporations Act reads thus:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

"34(1). The  Central Government  may give  to either  of the Corporations directions  as to  the exercise and performance by the  Corporation of  its functions,  and the  Corporation shall be  bound to  give effect to any such directions." The High Court  was of  the view  that the  power under the said provision is confined to giving directions only with respect to "the  exercise and  performance by the Corporation of its functions" and  that the  expression "functions" in the said provision should  be understood in the light of Section 7 of the Act  which sets  out the  functions of the Corporations. The High  Court opined  that since regulating the conditions of service  of its  employees is  not a  matter specified in Section 7,  the said  directions are beyond the authority of the Central  Government. In short, the High Court understood the functions  of  the  Corporation  as  confined  to  those mentioned in Section 7 alone. We are unable to agree.      It is  true that  Section 7 does set out the "functions of the  Corporation" but it would be erroneous to think that the  Corporation   has  no   other  functions  except  those specified in  Section 7.  The Air Corporations Act speaks of the functions,  duties and  powers of the Corporation but as we shall  demonstrate presently,  powers and  functions  are used as interchangeable expressions. Section 45 empowers the Corporation to  make regulations  not inconsistent  with the Act  or   the  rules   made  under   Section  44   for   the administration of  the affairs  of the  Corporation and  for carrying out  its functions.  Sub-section (2)  of Section 45 specifies the  matters with respect to which regulations can be made  under the said section. Sub-section (2), insofar as it is relevant, reads thus:      "45(2).   In  particular   and   without      prejudice  to   the  generality  of  the      foregoing power,  any  such  regulations      may  provide  for  all  or  any  of  the      following matters, namely:--      (b)  the terms and conditions of service      of officers  and other  employees of the      Corporation  other   than  the  managing      director  and   officers  of  any  other      categories referred to in section 44."      Regulating the  service conditions  of its employees is referred to as a power in Section 45, but one may ask, is it not its  function as  well. Be  that as  it  may,  the  very language employed  in Section  7 establishes  that both  the expressions were  used by the Parliament, in this enactment, as interchangeable concepts. Sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 7, insofar as relevant, read thus:      "7.  Functions of the Corporations.--(1)      Subject to  the rules,  if any,  made by      the Central  Government in  this behalf,      it shall  be the function of each of the      Corporations    to     provide,    safe,      efficient,  adequate,   econominal   and      properly  co-ordinated   air   transport      services,    whether     internal     or      international   or    both,   and    the      Corporations  shall  so  exercise  their      powers  as   to  secure   that  the  air      transport services  are developed to the      best advantage  and, in  particular,  so      exercise those  powers as to secure that      the services  are provided at reasonable      charges.      (2)  Without prejudice to the generality      of the  powers conferred  by sub-section

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

    (1), each  of the Corporations shall, in      particular, have power--"                              (Emphasis added)      The first  part of  sub-section (1) of Section 7 speaks of the  functions of  the Corporation  while the latter part speaks of  the powers of the Corporation being exercised for a proper  performance of  its functions. So far so good. But then sub-section  (2) refers to the functions in sub-section (1) as  powers conferred  upon the  Corporation. It  must be remembered that  Section 7(1) does not purport to confer any powers upon  the Corporation; it only sets out its functions and then says that the Corporation shall exercise its powers so as  to perform its functions effectively. Thus, when sub- section (2)  speaks of  powers conferred by sub-section (1), it is obviously speaking of the functions of the Corporation but referring to them as "powers". It indeed seeks to confer some more powers upon the Corporation, viz., those specified in clauses  (a) to  (1). Clauses  (a) to  (1) are  indeed an elaboration and  particularisation of the functions referred to sub-section (1). The language employed in sub-section (2) of Section  7 thus  demolishes the  distinction sought to be drawn between  powers and  functions of  the Corporation. To reiterate, it is erroneous to think that the Corporation has no other  functions except  those specified in Section 7. In the context  of the  Air Corporations  Act, the  distinction sought to  be drawn  between the  powers  and  functions  is unsustainable and  unreal.  A  reference  to  certain  other provisions of  the Act  including Sections  15 and 15-A goes indeed to  reinforce this  view.  Once  we  arrive  at  this conclusion, it  follows that  the directions  in question do pertain to  "the exercise and performance by the Corporation of its  functions" within  the meaning of Section 34(1) and, therefore, valid.      Sri Bhat, learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation submitted further  that the  Air India  Corporation being  a "State" within the meaning of Article 12, it is bound by the discipline  of   and  the   commands  of   Part-III  of  the Constitution which  contains Article 16(4). What the Central Government did  by way  of the impugned directions, he says, was only  to remind  the Corporation of its obligation under Article 16(4)  and no more. In view of the opinion expressed by us  on the  meaning and content of Section 34(1), we need not express any opinion of this submission.      For the  above reasons,  the appeals  are allowed,  the judgment under appeal is set aside and the directions issued by the  Central Government  which were  impugned in the Writ Petition (C)  No.1279 of 1978 on the file of the Bombay High Court are  held to  be within  the four  corners of  Section 34(1) of  the Air Corporations Act and, therefore, valid and effective. For  the same reasons, Writ Petition (C) Nos.145- 148 of 1980 are dismissed. No costs.