As per case facts, the Bombay High Court had ruled that the retirement age of 50 for air hostesses from flying duties, with an option for ground duties until 58, ... constituted sex discrimination, violating Articles 14, 15, 16 of the Constitution and Section 5 of the ER Act, and contrary to Section 34 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953. The High Court further issued a 'consensual order' based on employer proposals to merge cadres and achieve parity. Various associations, Air India, Union of India, and some air hostesses appealed, arguing the High Court disregarded previous Supreme Court rulings (like Nergesh Meerza case) and existing industrial settlements.The question arose whether the High Court correctly set aside previous industrial settlements and declared the different retirement ages for air hostesses as discriminatory, especially given prior Supreme Court rulings establishing separate cadres and the existence of binding agreements.Finally, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that the High Court erred by not adhering to judicial discipline and nullifying previous binding judgments (like Nergesh Meerza) which had upheld different service conditions and retirement ages for male and female cabin crew as separate cadres. The Supreme Court found the High Court's 'consensual order' improper and exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with industrial adjudication, especially as it prejudicially affected the majority of air hostesses bound by existing agreements and settlements. The impugned High Court judgment was set aside.