JUDGMENT : Oza, J. - Having gone through the judgment dictated by my learned brother Khalid J. although I agree with the conclusions arrived at by him but will like to add my own reasons for the conclusions. 2. When this petition came up before us the main ground which moved us to issue notice was that the Air-India employ Indian as well as girls coming from different nationalities as air-hostesses and 41 in respect of the age of retirement there are rules for air-hostesses recruited from different countries. It was alleged that whereas an Indian recruited as air-hostess will normally retire at the age of 30 years which could be extended upto 45, a British girl recruited as air-hostess retires at the age of 55 years and this, according to the petitioner was discrimination on the basis of colour. 3. In return the stand taken by the Air-India is that "As a matter of fact the Air Hostess recruited by British Airways in India retire at the age of 36 years in India whereas their counterparts in U.K. retire at the age of 55 years." It is unfortunate that the second respondent a Corporation which is for all purposes State within the meaning of the term as provided in Article 12 of Constitution of India should follow the British Airways in treating Indians differentially and discriminate against them. Reliance was also placed in return on the decision of this Court in Air India etc. etc. v Nergesh Meerza & Ors. etc. etc., 1981 (4) SCC 335 In return a passage has been quoted which appears at page 472, of the judgment. It is true that this is what has been observed in this judgment by a Bench of three Judges of this Court. It is observed : "...There is no complaint by the petitioners that between the separate class of AHs inter se there has been any discrimination regarding any matter. In fact, the only point raised on this aspect was that AHs employed by A.I. in U.K. have different conditions of service from AH serving A.I. in countries other than U.K. Doubtless this distinction is there but this is really a fortuitous circumstances because A.I. was forced to comply with the local laws of U.K. in order to increase the age of retirement of AHs posted in England. Surely we cannot expect A.I. to commit an offence by violating the laws of U.K...." It appears as it was also contended that they are bound by the decision of this Court. It is no doubt true that this is the decision which is binding but even in a situation as has been indicated in this judgment that Air India in order to avoid committing an offence in accordance with the law of United Kingdom is choosing to disregard Article 14 of the Constitution. But I have no hesitation that an Indian citizen in such a situation would prefer to walk off from a state where he may have to flout our Constitution to save himself from commission of an offence. All the more the same is expected of respondent No. 2, 'a corporation controlled by the Government of India. It is expected that this corporation would abide by the requirement of Art. 14 rather than anything else. If need be, it has to walk out of a country where it may become impossible to act in accordance with the ideals of our Constitution or where it may become necessary to disregard the provisions of our Constitution and it is not something new as we have been keeping away from countries which follow apartheid policies. But I am happy that Shri Venugopal, senior advocate appealing for respondent No. 2 frankly stated that his colleague learned counsel Shri Lalit Bhasin got the United Kingdom Sex Discrimination Act, 1975 further examined and now it is clear that in view of Section 6 sub-clause 4 of that Act it will not be a contravention of that law to have the same age of retirement for an air-hostess recruited in U.K. as is provided for an air-hostess recruited of Indian origin. It appears that this was the law (United Kingdom) Sex Discrimination Act, 1975) which was perhaps in the minds of the Judges in Air-India's case. 4. In view of this learned counsel frankly stated that henceforth air hostesses recruited anywhere will be treated in the same manner as air- hostesses recruited from India and it is only on this frank admission made by learned counsel for respondent No. 2 that we see no reason to entertain the petition. In this view of the matter I agree with the conclusions reached by my learned brother Khalid J.