EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL

WORK
PROJECT REPORT ON
SERVICE LAW

SESSION: - 2015-2016

SUBMITTED TO:

SUBMITTED BY:

Dr. Jaswinder Kaur

Kanish Jindal

UILS, PU, CHANDIGARH

Roll No: 139/12

B.Com/LL.B (Hons.)
Section- C
8th Semester; 4th Year

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH
2015.

1 | Page

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I wish to convey my greatest appreciation to DR. JASWINDER KAUR, a professional
professor and a great mentor, who challenged and organized my thoughts and helped convert
them to the written words.
I desire to thank deeply the professionals at the UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL
STUDIES, PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH, for their initial faith and
encouragement that I submit my project report.
I am indebted to MY MOTHER, MY FATHER and other family members for providing
models of kindness and decency.
My greatest debt, however, is reserved for THE ALMIGHTY for providing me with
everything in life.

KANISH JINDAL
Roll No.- 139/12

2 | Page

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TOPIC

PG. NO.

1 INTRODUCTION
2 RIGHT TO EQUALITY
3 OBJECT
4 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
5 LANDMARK JUDGMENTS
6 LEGISLATIVE PERSPECTIVE
7 GENDER INEQUALITY
8 INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
9 NOT AN ABSTRACT DOCTRINE
10
EQUAL REMUNERATION ACT

4.
4.
7.
7.
11.
15.
16.
18.
19.

23.

11BURDEN OF PROOF.
12
SUGGESTIONS

28.

29.

13
14

STTAGERING STATISTICS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
38..

3 | Page

34

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

INTRODUCTION
The main desire has been for social security since the origin of mankind. All human beings
want minimum requirement of food, shelter and clothing. There have been historical
revolutions in China, Russia and other countries to have economic security and emancipation
from exploiters yoke. In human society, there cannot be mathematic equality nor is it
physically and humanly possible. There has been endeavour to reduce it to the minimum gap
and effort will continue till the survival of the human beings. Socio-economic structure of
India is such that some people live affluently and majority of them lead a life below poverty
line. Some have palatial bungalow's to live in and large number of people in big cities like
Calcutta, Bombay sleep on pavements and slum. Compulsions of unequal distribution of land
in the villages and village society, which is unable to provide employment to its inhabitants,
make them to rush to the cities for work. Man on account of dire necessity to eke out
livelihood accepts, whatever is given to him. He accepts minimum low wages than minimum
or even lesser than fair wages.
The Constitution of India, in its attempt to build an egalitarian and secular ideology engrafted
into it principles of equality, liberty and justice proclaimed in the Declaration of Human
Rights. The preamble of the Indian Constitution sets out the main objectives, which the
framers of the constitution intended to achieve. It seek to secure to all its citizens including
women justice, social, economic and political, liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and
worship, equality of status, and opportunity, and promote among the people of India fraternity
assuring dignity of individual for all its citizens including women. The philosophy of the
Constitution is enshrined in the fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy.

RIGHT TO EQUALITY
Articles 14 and 19 do not confer any fanciful rights - In the case of Minerva Mills Limited
v. Union of India, CHANDRACHUD, C.J., speaking for the majority, observed that
Articles 14 and 19 do not confer any fanciful rights. They confer rights which are
elementary for the proper and effective functioning of democracy. They are
universally regarded by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If Articles 14 and
19 are put out of operation, Article 32 will be rendered nugatory. In the said judgment,
the majority took the view that the principles enumerated in Part IV are not the
proclaimed monopoly of democracies alone. Every State is goal-oriented and every

4 | Page

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

State claims to strive for securing the welfare of its people. The distinction between
different forms of Government consists in the fact that a real democracy will
endeavour to achieve its objectives through the discipline of fundamental freedoms
like Articles 14 and 19. Without these freedoms, democracy is impossible. If Article
14 is withdrawn, the political pressures exercised by numerically large groups can tear
the country apart by leading it to the legislation to pick and choose favoured areas and
favorite classes for preferential treatment.
Concept of equality, if has remained a myth - Article 14 of the Constitution of India
guarantees equality of opportunity. As a concept it has no parallel. But when it is put in
practice exceptions are carved out. Unequals cannot be clubbed. Perhaps this is the reason
that the benefit of this Article has remained a utopian myth to a vast majority of the Indian
population. There are starvation deaths on one side and urban effluence on the other. The
scale is uneven, yet Article 14 is not attracted. Was it not the purpose of Article 14 to raise the
unequals to a level where the difference in inequality was reduced? It is only when this
concept is implemented in letter and spirit and the scale is balanced the goal set by the
Constitution can be said to have been achieved. Equality must not remain mere idle
incantation but must become a vibrant living reality for the large mass of people.
Right to equality and its relationship with the Preamble to the Constitution of India Article 14 is related to the Preamble to the Constitution directly. The Preamble declares as
one of the objects of the Constitution is to secure to all the citizens equality of status and of
opportunity.
Rule of Law - The doctrine of equality before the law is a necessary corollary to the high
concept of the rule of law accepted by the Constitution. One of the aspects of the rule of law
is that every executive action if it is to operate to the prejudice of any person must normally
be supported by some legislative authority. Equality before law is co-relative to the concept
of rule of law for all round evaluation of healthy social order. A basic postulate of the rule
of law is that justice should not only be done but it must also be seen to be done."
Credibility in the functioning of justice delivery system and the reasonable perception of the
affected parties are the necessary considerations to ensure the continuance of public
confidence in the credibility and impartiality of the judiciary.

5 | Page

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

Equality before the law - The doctrine of equality, is a dynamic and evolving concept. This
has many facets. It is embodied not only in Article 14 but also in Articles 15 to 18 of Part III
as well as in Articles 38, 39, 39A, 41 and 46 of Part IV of the Constitution of India. The
object of all these provisions is to attain justice, social, economic and political, which is
indicated in the Preamble and which is the sum-total of the aspirations incorporated in Part
IV. In a society where glaring inequalities of income, social injustice and exploitation,
inequality of status and opportunity exist, there is no room for equality before the law.
Equality before law and equal protection of laws, difference in the two concepts Article 14 of the Constitution of India enjoins upon the State not to deny to any person
equality before law" or the equal protection of laws within the territory of India. The two
expressions do not mean the same thing even if there may be much in common. The
meaning of these expressions has to be found and determined having regard to the context
and scheme of the Constitution. It appears that the word law in the former expression is
used in a generic sense, a philosophical sense, whereas the word laws in the latter
expression denotes specific laws in force.
Equality is a multi-coloured concept incapable of a single definition - Equality is a multicoloured concept incapable of a single definition as is also the fundamental right under
Article 19(1)(g). The principle of equality is a delicate, vulnerable and supremely precious
concept for the Indian society. It has embraced a critical and essential component of
constitutional identity. The larger principles of equality as stated in Articles 14, 15 and 16
may be understood as an element of the basic structure of the Constitution and may not
be subject to amendment, although, these provisions, intended to configure these rights in a
particular way, may be changed within the constraints of the broader principle.
There can be no Rule of law if there is no equality before the law; and Rule of law and
equality before the law would be empty words if their violation was not a matter of judicial
scrutiny or judicial review and judicial relief and all these features would lose their
significance if judicial, executive and Legislative functions were united in only one authority,
whose dictates had the force of law. The Rule of law and equality before the law are designed
to secure among other things justice, both social and economic.

6 | Page

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

OBJECT
The object behind the principle of Equal pay for equal work is to bring about socioeconomic equality so as to secure the ultimate ideal of Economic Democracy. Explaining the
contents of the principle in Randhir Singh v. Union of India1, the Supreme Court observed:
To the vast majority of the people the equality clauses of the Constitution would mean
nothing if they are unconcerned with the work they do and the pay they get. To them
the equality clauses will have some substances if equal work means equal pay. The
preamble to the Constitution declares the solemn resolution of the people of India to
constitute India into a Sovereign, Socialist, Democratic, Republic. Again, the word
Socialist must mean something. Even if it does not mean to each according to his
need, it must at least mean equal pay for equal work.

The Apex Court said that the principle of equal pay for equal work was expressly
recognized by all socialist systems of law. The Court referred to the Preamble of the
International Labour Organisation which recognizes the principle of equal remuneration for
work of equal value as constituting one of the means of achieving the improvement of
conditions involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to
produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperiled.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
Among the fundamental rights, article 14 guarantees "equality before law and equal
protection of laws within the territory of India". Article 15 prohibits discrimination on
grounds, inter alia of sex. Article 15(3) empowers the state to make, any special provision in
favour of women. Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public
employment. While Article 16(1) ensure equality of opportunity for all citizens including
women in matter relating to employment or appointment to any office under the state, article
1 AIR 1982 SC 879.
7 | Page

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

16 (2) prohibits discrimination in respect of any employment or office under the state on the
ground, inter alia, of sex.
The state has been directed "to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting
as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political shall
inform all the institutions of national life. Article 39 of the Constitution relating to the
directive principles is more specific and comprehensive in nature. This article with six subclauses is analogous to one contained in article 45 (2) of the Irish Constitution. This
article specifically requires the state to strive for securing equal pay for equal work of both
men and women (Article 39(d)).
A perusal of above discussion lead to the conclusion that "equal pay for equal work" is one of
the goals set out by the constitution to be realized or achieved by the labour and other
legislation in India. One of the major impediments to the practical achievement of this aim is
widespread poverty, unemployment, under employment and illiteracy.
According to Article 39: "The State shall in particular, direct its policy towards securing
a) that the citizen, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of
livelihood.
b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so
distributed as best to subserve the common good.
c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth
and means of production to the common detriment.
d) that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women.
e) that the health and strength of workers, men and women and the tender age of the children
are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations
unsuited to their age or strength.
f) that children are given opportunities and facilities to developed in a healthy manner and in
conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against
exploitation and against moral and material abandonment.
The aforesaid Article is a dynamic devise to mitigate the sufferings of the poor, weak and
deprived persons of the society and so elevate them to the level of equality to live a life with
dignity of person. The aim of social justice is to attain substantial degree of social, economic
and political equality, which is the legitimate expectation and constitutional goal. Social
justice and equality are complementary to each other so that both should maintain their
vitality. Rule of law, therefore, is a potent instrument of social justice to bring about equality.
The principle of "equal pay for equal work" is not expressly declared by our constitution to
8 | Page

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

be a fundamental right, but it certainly is a constitutional goal. The directive principle under
Article 39(d) of the constitution proclaim "equal pay for equal work" for both men and
women means equal pay for equal work for everyone and as between the sexes. Directive
Principles have to be read into the fundamental rights as a matter of interpretation. Article
14 enjoins the state not to deny to any person equality before the law or the equal
protection of laws and Article 16 declares that there shall be equality of opportunity for all
citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the state.
Article 39 deals with certain principles of policies to be followed by the state. It has been laid
down that "equal pay should be given to men and women doing equal work". This article,
which apparently envisages equality of pay for men and women, has been applied to enforce
equality of pay generally. In Randhir Singh vs. Union of India 2, the Supreme Court held that
the principle of "equal pay for equal work" though not a fundamental right is certainly a
constitutional goal and, therefore, capable of enforcement through constitutional remedies
under article 32 of the constitution. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work is equally
applicable to persons employed on daily wage basis. They are entitled to the same wages as
other permanent employees in the department employed to do the identical work. In Jeet
Singhs case3 where Supreme Court invalidated the differences of pay scales of drivers in
Delhi Police Force and Delhi Administration and Central Government, relied on Article
39(d). However, workers under different establishments and managements cannot
automatically claim parity of payment. Similarly, pay scales may differ on the basis of
educational qualifications. Equally, differences in housing facilities under different employers
may not be unjustified and the court may not issue mandamus to allot houses to low income
employees in an establishment because such facility is available in another establishment or
that the state is a social welfare state. The doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" cannot be
put in a strait jacket. This right, although finds place in Article 39, is an accompaniment of
equality clause enshrined in Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. Reasonable classification,
based on intelligible criteria having nexus with the object bought to be achieved is
permissible. Accordingly, it has been held in State of U.P. vs. J.P. Chaurasia4, by the
Supreme Court that different scale of pay in the same cadre of person doing similar work can
be fixed if there is a difference in the nature of work done and difference as regards reliability
2 AIR 1982 SC 879.
3 Jeet Singh vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1986) Supp SCC 560.
4 AIR 1989 SC 19.
9 | Page

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

and responsibility. In State of A.P. vs. V.G. Sreenivasa Rao 5, the Supreme Court has held that
giving higher pay to a junior in the same cadre is not illegal and violative of Article 14, 16
and 39(d) if there is rational basis for it. In State of Haryana vs. Rajpal Sharma6, it has been
held that the teachers employed in privately managed aided schools in State of Haryana are
entitled to same salary and dearness allowances as is paid to teachers employed in
government school. In Federation of A. I. Custom and Central Excise Stenographers
(Recog.) vs. Union of India,7 the Supreme Court has emphasized that equal pay must depend
on the "nature of the work done" and not "mere volume of work" as "there may be qualitative
difference as regard reliability and responsibility." "Functions may be the same but the
responsibilities make a different". The Court has further observed: The same amount of
physical work may entail different quality of work, some more sensitive, some requiring
more tact, some less, it varies from nature and culture of employment. The problem about
equal pay can't always be translated into a mathematical formula. In Markendeya vs. State
of Andhra Pradesh, difference in pay scale, between graduate supervisors holding degree in
Engineering and non-graduate supervisors being diploma and licence holders was upheld. It
was held that on the basis of difference in educational qualifications such difference in pay
scales was justified and would not offend Article 14 and 16. The Court pointed out that
where two classes of employees perform identical or similar duties and carry out the same
functions with the same measure of responsibility having the same academic
qualifications, they would be entitled to equal pay. "Principle of equal pay for equal work is
applicable among equals. It can't be applied to unequal." Thus, daily rated workers can't be
equated with regular employees of the State in the matter of wages. There are differences of
qualifications, age, and manner of selection between the two categories of employees. This
principle has been recently reiterated by the Supreme Court in the following words: "Equality
is a basic feature of the constitution of India and any treatment of equals unequally or unequal
as equal will be violation of basis structure of the constitution of India. Besides, the
principle of gender equality in the matter specifically embodied in the Article 39(d), the
'Supreme Court has extracted the general principle of equal pay for equal work by reading
Article 14, 16 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court has emphasized in Randhir

5 (1989) 2 SCC 290

6 AIR 1997 SC 449.
7 AIR 1988 SC 1291.
10 | P a g e

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

Singh8, referring to Article 39(d), that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" is not an
abstract doctrine but one of substance. Though, the principle is not expressly declared by the
constitution to be a fundamental rights yet it may be deduced by construing Article 14 and 16
in the light of Article 39(d). The word 'socialist' in the preamble must at least mean "equal
pay for equal work".
The Supreme Court has observed in Grih Kalyan Kendra vs. Union of India9:
"Equal pay for equal work is not expressly declared by the Constitution as a
fundamental rights but in view of the directive principle of state policy as contain in
Article 39(d) of the Constitution "equal pay for equal work" has assume the status of
Fundamental Rights in service jurisprudence having regard to the constitution
mandate of equality in Article 14 and 16 of the constitution."

It may be worthwhile to note that Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
1948, declares that all are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to
the equal protection of laws. By and large the same concept of equality inheres in Article 14
of the Indian Constitution. It may be noted that the right to equality has been declared by
Supreme Court as basic feature of the Constitution. The Constitution is wedded to the
concept of equality. The preamble to the Constitution emphasizes upon the principle of
equality as basic to the constitution. This means that even a constitutional amendment
offending the right to equality will be declared invalid. Neither parliament nor any state
legislature can transgress the principle of equality. So, the concept of equality gives the idea
of oneness, unity and integrity of the nation. Equality is natural instinct. In propagating
8 AIR 1982 SC 879.
9 AIR 1991 SC 1173.
11 | P a g e

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

principle of distributive justice, it has been boldly pointed out "the man should be treated in
the same way when there is sufficient reason not to treat them differently."

CASES

TO

UNDERSTAND

THE

CONSTITUTIONAL

PERSPECTIVE
1. Randhir Singh v. Union of India10
In this case, the petitioner was a Driver-Constable in the Delhi Police Force under Delhi
Administration who claimed that his scale of pay should be the same as the scale of pay of
other drivers in the service of the Delhi Administration as he discharged the same duties as
the rest of the drivers in the other offices. He stated that there was no reason whatsoever to
discriminate against the petitioner and other driver-constables merely because he and his ilk
were described as constables belonging to the Police Force instead of ordinary drivers, who
had a greater pay scale. In this landmark case the court conceded that, though the equation of
posts and equations of pay were matters primarily for the Executive Government and expert
bodies like the Pay Commission and not for Courts to decide but persons holding identical
posts were not to be treated differentially in the matters of pay merely because they belonged
to different departments. It was this case in which the Court held for the first time that though
the principle of equal pay for equal work was not expressly declared by the Constitution to be
a fundamental right, it was certainly a constitutional Goal. The Court also first time
contemplated the fact that the doctrine proclaiming Equal pay for equal work for both men
and women meant Equal pay for equal work or everyone as and between sexes.
The Court extended the purview of the doctrine under Right of Equality and stated that Art.14
of the Constitution enjoined the State not to deny any person equality before the law or the
equal protection of the laws and simultaneously Art. 16 declared that there shall be equality
of opportunity for all citizens. In matters relating to employment or appointment to any office
under the State and it was in this context that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work was to
be adjudged.

10 AIR 1982 SC 879.

12 | P a g e

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

2. Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wages Employees Association v. State of
Karnataka
This case was brought before the Supreme Court through a series of writ petitions asking for
quashing a notification of the government of Karnataka and for issuing directions to
Government to confirm the daily rated and monthly rated employees as regular government
servants and for payment of normal salaries to those workers employed under temporary
terms. The petitions were made, pleading that about 50,000 daily-wage workers were
employed in the different Government establishments and though many of them had put in 16
to 20 years of continuous service, they were not regularized in their service and were not
being paid equally, violating the principle of equal pay for equal work as mandated by the
Court. The petitions claimed for the pay of such workmen at the rates equivalent to the
minimum pay in the pay-scales of the regularly employed workers.
The Court laid that the equality clauses of the Constitution under Articles 14 and 16 were to
be construed in the light of the Preamble and Article 39(d), and it followed that the principle
'equal pay for equal work' was deducible from those Articles and could properly be applied to
cases of unequal scales of pay based on the classification or irrational classification.
3. Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers v. Union Of
India
In this case, a petition for seeking parity in pay scales was filed before the Supreme Court.
The petitioners were personal assistants and stenographers attached to the heads of the
Customs and Central Excise Departments under the Ministry of Finance. They asserted that
they were discriminated vis--vis personal assistants and stenographers attached to the joint
secretaries and officers above them in the Ministry. They contended that the type of work was
the same and in fact they had more work to be done. The Respondents in return emphasized
that the difference in the functional requirements of the work done was one of the points for
such discrimination. The respondents also stated that while devising the pay-scales of various
posts and categories, the degree of skill, experience involved, training required, responsibility
taken, strain, fatigue, risk and confidentiality undertaken, mental and physical requirements
were factors borne in mind.
The Respondent also emphasized that though the duties and works were identical between the
petitioners and their counterparts attached to the Secretaries in the Secretariat, their functions
were not identical with regard to their duties and responsibilities. The Supreme Court held
that Equal pay for equal work is a fundamental right. But equal pay must depend upon the
13 | P a g e

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

nature of the work done and it cannot be judged by the mere volume of work. The Court reemphasized that equal pay for equal work was a concomitant of Article 14 of the Constitution
and it naturally followed that equal pay for unequal work was a negation of that right. The
Court also took a great step by laying down that the interpretation of Article 39(d) was to be
read in the Fundamental Rights, under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. So the principle
of equal pay for equal work, though not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a
fundamental right, was a constitutional goal. Construing Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the
Preamble and Article 39(d), the Court laid that the principle of Equal pay for equal work
was deducible from those articles and was to be applied to cases of unequal scales of pay,
which were based on no classification or irrational classification.
4. Mewa Ram v. A.I.I. Medical Science
Supreme Court has held that the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' is not an abstract
doctrine. Equality must be among equals, unequals cannot claim equality. Even if the duties
and functions are of similar nature but if the educational qualifications prescribed for the two
posts are different and there is difference in measure of responsibilities, the principle of equal
pay for equal work would not apply. Different treatment to persons belonging to the same
class is permissible classification on the basis of educational qualifications.
5 Deena v. Union of India
It was held that labor taken from prisoners without paying proper remuneration was "forced
labor" and in violation of Article 23 of the Constitution. The prisoners are entitled to payment
of reasonable wages for the work taken from them and the Court is under duty to enforce
their claim. There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to
employment or appointment to any office under the State. No citizen shall, on grounds only
of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for,
or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State. They are,
however, non-justifiable rights on the people, which set out the economic, social and political
goals of the Indian Constitutional system, and place the government under a moral obligation
to achieve and maximize social welfare and basic social values like education, employment,
health etc. The reason for non-enforceability, as M.P. Jain describes, is that they impose a
positive obligation upon the state and it is while taking actions for implementing these
obligations that there arise several limitations to the Government, one such constraint being
the availability of resources. However, the Courts in India and the Supreme Court in
14 | P a g e

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

particular have constantly and consistently regarded the principle of equal pay for equal work
as a constitutional goal, much higher than being a mere Directive Principle, and have
subsequently enforced it in-tandem with the fundamental rights, enshrined under Right to
Equality (Art. 14-18).

LEGISLATIVE PERSPECTIVE
Major points of consideration that have come up are:
The concept of equality does not mean absolute equality among human beings which is
physically not possible to achieve. It is a concept implying absence of any special
privilege by reason of birth, creed or the like in favour of any individual, and also the
equal subject of all individuals and classes to the ordinary law of the land.
Equal law should be applied to all in the same situation, and there should be no
discrimination between one person and another.
The Supreme Court has held that although the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is
not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right, but it is certainly a
constitutional goal under Articles 14, 16 and 39 (c) of the Constitution.(Randhir Singh v.
Union of India11).
It has been held that the principle of equal pay for equal work is also applicable to casual
workers employed on daily wage basis.(Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P12)
The Supreme Court has held that different pay scales can be fixed for government
servants holding same post and performing similar work on the basis of difference in
degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality, and as such it will not be violative
of the principle of equal pay for equal work, implicit in Article 14. The Court said, "Equal
pay must depend upon the nature of the work done. It cannot be judged by the mere
volume of work. There may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and
responsibility.( F.A.I.C. and C.E.S. v. Union of India13)

11 AIR 1982 SC 879.

12 1986 (1) SCC 637.
13 AIR 1988 SC 1291.
15 | P a g e

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

GENDER INEQUALITY
Gender inequities throughout the world are among the most all-pervasive forms of inequality.
Gender equality concerns each and every member of the society and forms the very basis of a
just society and hence, the issue of gender justice is of enormous magnitude and of
mammoth ramification engulfing an all-embracing and illimitable canvas. In the midnight of
August 15, 1947, when India awoke to life and freedom, most of its 170 million women
scarcely knew what the Tryst with Destiny was all about. Victims of poverty, ignorance and
oppressive social institutions, they hardly knew their destiny and who controlled it. However,
the stalwarts who led India to its independence were aware that if the new India of their
dreams was to become a reality and not remain only a figment of imagination, it would need
social engineering on a massive scale, in respect of the backward and oppressed sections of
the society and above all, its women.
It is no denying the fact that there is no country in the world where women and men get equal
pay for equal work. Even in countries with impressively high overall gender parity also
women do not get equal wage on par with men. According to the Global Gender Gap
Report of 2010, among the BRIC economies i.e. Brazil, Russia, India, China), India has the
peculiarity of being the lowest ranked gender parity including wage. In spite of global
concern over gender parity in wages, little progress has been made even after certain initial
victories in women protests across the globe.
In 1963 women were paid 59 cents against every dollar men earned in the US. In order to
bridge the gap between this parity, US had enacted a law in 1963 to end the discrimination. In
all these forty years of the legislation, the wage structure now in the gender parity is 77 cents
to one dollar, which means the progress even in America, considered being the most
developed country has been very slow.
The Constitution of India recognized vide Article 39(d) and 41, the principle for equal pay
for equal work for both men women, and right to work. In the year 1976 Indian
government had brought out Equal Remuneration Act. These constitutional and legislative
measures could not bring a considerable change in the wage parity between women and men.
Whether it is small business or a large organization and from the organized sector to the
unorganized, unequal pay has been daunting the women workforce.
Factors that explain the gender pay gap are complex and often interrelated.
Undervaluing womens to mens:

16 | P a g e

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

Although women and men are assigned equal work, often it is seen that womens competence
levels are assessed low compared to men. Jobs that require equal qualifications, experience
and skills, if they are dominated by majority of women, they are poorly paid. A female
Cashier in a supermarket earns less than her male counterpart involved in certain physical
tasks. Even in evaluation of performance for career progression, more importance is attached
to capital than accountability for people.
Segregation:
There are sectors that are dominated by women and men, although they tend to work in
different jobs. Within the company sector, women predominate only in lower valued and
lower paid jobs. When it comes to senior positions like managers, board members, scientists
and engineers women are, by and large under-represented.
Traditional background:
The choice of educational paths that girls make also contributes segregation. Among
graduates and undergraduates that come out of universities girls percentage is sometimes
higher than the boys. The percentage of them in streams like engineering, mathematics,
management etc. is less. Therefore, women working in senior level jobs like science and
technology are less.
Private life/biological factors:
Pregnancy and child care are two factors that make women face gaps in careers, which affect
their growth. These interruptions cause negative impact on their career growth.
Slowly things are changing and the society started looking at women with more respect and
care and this will bridge the wage parity between women and men.
It has to be stated here that though it is the primary task of the employer not to discriminate
on the basis of sex (as made mandatory by the Supreme Court in recent judgments), the
Constitution does not provide for any classification that the employer can make such as on
the basis of qualification and level of skill of the employee i.e. if the workers perform the
same task, they have to be treated equally without any discrimination thereof. Though the
article 39 (d) speaks only as to discrimination between man and woman, the concept of equal
pay for equal work has been applied in generality to all without any hint of gender or class.
The Supreme Court continuously and consistently increasing the purview of this doctrine has
gone far off to make new interpretations so that any sort of discrimination, unless based on
reasonable grounds, does not go un-refuted. The very purpose and nature of the said article
has been changed by the apex court and the article which was originally instilled to support
17 | P a g e

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

woman in there right of equal status is now applied to now employed to nullify any sort of
rule and provision which tends to affect the rights of workers to get equal pay if they perform
the same kind of work in similar organizations. However the Supreme Court has added a new
clause to the article in the way of reasonable nexus of discrimination. This reasonable nexus
includes the qualifications of the employees, capacity of the workers and many more. The list
is endless and new points of classifications are incorporated in it as and when the Supreme
Court says so.

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
The International Labour Organisation has, from the outset accepted and, on several
occasion, reaffirmed the principle of equal remuneration for men and women doing work of
equal value. The question has been in the limelight particularly during and since the war,
although the issue is by no means a new one. During the Second World War, women were
employed in new occupations, and large numbers of women were drawn into the employment
market to meet urgent demands for labour, particularly in war industries. At that time, the
problem of equal remuneration was primarily considered as that of protecting mens wages
and of preventing their being levelled down by the employment of women at lower rate1. In
most countries, female labour forms a substantial proportion of the total labour force, whether
the economy of the country is predominantly agricultural or industrial in character. Moreover,
efforts are being made in many countries, where industrialization or economic planning is
developing, to make better use of female labour either by drawing new supplies of such
labour into the employment market, or by redistributing the existing supply, or by both
methods. The constitution of the International Labour Organisation, as originally adopted
in 1919, proclaimed the special and urgent importance of the principle that men and
women should receive equal remuneration for the work of equal value.
The principle has it genesis in the Universal Declaration of Human Right which the General
Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed on 10 December, 1948 (without any
dissenting vote against it) as a common standard of achievement of all people and all
nations. It stipulates that Everyone without any discrimination has a right to equal pay
for equal work. Further Article 7 of the International Covenant on Economic and Cultural
Rights of 1966, Inter alia, provide: The states parties to the present covenant recognize the
right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work which ensure, in
particular the equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind in
18 | P a g e

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

particular women being guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those enjoyment by
men, with equal pay for equal work. Moreover, Article 10 of the Declaration on the
Elimination of Discrimination in regard to women 1967, inter alia, provides: All
appropriate measures shall be taken to ensure to women married or unmarried, the same right
as to men in the field of economic and social life and notably the right to equality of
remuneration with men and equality of pay for work of equal value. In the United Nations,
the Commission on the status of women, a functional commission of the Economic and
social Council, has recognized the need for providing equal pay for equal work for men and
women workers. It has also taken several steps to promote the principles of equal pay. For
instance, in 1947, at its first session, it set forth as one of its aim that women should enjoy the
same rights as men with regard to wages. In 1948, at its second session, it adopted a
resolution affirming its support of the principle of equal pay and recommended that the
Economic and Social Council call on member states to encourage application of the
principles by all possible means1. One further international endorsement of the general
principle of equal remuneration may be mentioned. The Ninth International Conference of
American state held at Bogota in May, 1948 adopted on Inter-American character of Social
Guarantees which state, that there should be equal compensation for equal work,
regardless of sex, race, creed, or nationality of the worker.

"EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK", NOT AN ABSTRACT

DOCTRINE It is now well settled that "equal pay for equal work" is a fundamental right. But, the question
whether two posts are equal or should carry equal pay, depends upon several factors. It does
not just depend upon either the nature of work or volume of work done. Therefore, if the
classification made in relation to the scales of pay is proper and reasonable and has a nexus to
the object sought to be achieved, the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" will have no
application.14
In Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers (F.A.I.C. & C.E.S.)
v. Union of India15, on the basis of the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission, 1973,
14 See Chandreshwar v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 2671; Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v.
Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 334; State of UP. v. Ramoshyrya, AIR 1996 SC 1188.

15 AIR 1988 S.C. 1291.

19 | P a g e

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

the Central Government fixed different pay scales for Stenographers Grade I working in
Central Secretariat and those attached to the Heads of Subordinate Offices. While the former
were given higher grade, the latter were granted lower scale of pay. The petitioners
challenged the differentiation as violative of Articles 14 and 16(1). The Supreme Court,
however, upheld the differentiation in the pay scales and ruled that although "equal pay for
equal work" was a fundamental right, but equal pay must depend upon the nature of the work
done and that it could not be judged by the mere volume of work. There might be qualitative
difference as regards reliability, responsibility and confidentiality. Functions might be the
same but the responsibilities would make a difference.
The rule of "equal pay for equal work," is a concomitant of Article 14, but the Court
explained that "equal pay for unequal work" would be a negation of that right. If the
differentiation had been sought to be justified in view of the nature and the type of the work
done, then, on intelligible basis, the same amount of physical work might entail different
quality of work. It would, therefore, vary, depending upon the nature and culture of
employment. Although, the duties of the petitioners and their Secretariat counterparts were
identical, their functions were not identical. The Supreme Court, therefore, justified the
differentiation on the grounds of dissimilarity of the responsibility, confidentiality and the
relationship with public, etc. The classification was held to be based on rational nexus with
the object sought to be achieved.
In Mewa Ram v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences 16, the Supreme Court held that it
was open to the State to prescribe different scales of pay for different posts having regard to
educational qualification, duties and responsibilities of the post.
The rule of equal pay for equal work is not always easy to apply. There may be inherent
difficulties in comparing and evaluating work done by different persons in different
organisations or even in the same organization.
It is not an abstract doctrine. It has been observed that the judgment of administrative
authorities concerning the responsibilities which attach to the post and the degree of
reliability expected of an incumbent, would be a value judgment of the authority concerned,
which if arrived at bona fide, reasonably and rationally, was not open to interference by the
Court. The nature of work, the sphere of work, duration of work and other special
16 AIR 1989 SC 1256.
20 | P a g e

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

circumstances, if any, attached to the performance of duties, would have also to be taken into
consideration while working the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work. The rule had been
held not applicable where there was difference in the mode of recruitment, qualifications and
promotion among persons though holding same posts and performing similar work.
It is said that the doctrine is invoked to correct irrational and inexplicable pay
differentiation such as discriminated group-sex-based, colour-based caste-based. Though,
the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" is implicit in the doctrine of equality enshrined in
Article 14 and that "it flows from it", yet, it is neither a mechanical rule nor does it mean
geometrical equality. The quality of work might vary from post to post. It might vary from
institution to institution and that it would be not a matter of assumption but one of proof.
In State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia17, the Apex Court ruled that the rule of "equal pay for equal
work had no mechanical application in every case of similar work. Holding that the quality
of work performed by person of longer experience was superior than the work of newcomers,
the Apex Court upheld two pay scales in same cadre of persons, performing same or similar
duties, as a reasonable classification and had a rational nexus with the object thereof. The
Court cautioned that to hold otherwise would be detrimental to the interest of the service
itself.
In S.C. Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India18, the Supreme Court held that
discrimination was condition precedent for the application of the doctrine of "equal pay for
equal work." So long as it was not a case of discrimination under Article 14, the abstract
doctrine as envisaged by Article 39(d) had no manner of application.
In Secretary, Finance Department v. West Bengal Registration Service Association 19, the
Apex Court cautioned: job evaluation is both difficult and time consuming task which even
expert bodies having the assistance of staff with requisite expertise have found difficult to
undertake sometimes on account of want of relevant data and scales for evaluating
performances of different groups of employees. The Court explained:
Ordinarily, a pay structure is evolved keeping in mind several factors, e.g.,
17 AIR 1989 SC 19.
18 AIR 1990 SC 19.
19 AIR 1992 SC 1203.
21 | P a g e

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

(1) method of recruitment;
(ii) level at which recruitment is made;
(iii) the hierarchy of service in a given cadre;
(iv) minimum educational/technical qualifications required;
(v) avenues of promotion;
(vi) the nature of duties and responsibilities;
(vii) the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs;
(viii) public dealings;
(ix) satisfaction level;
(x) employers capacity to pay, etc.
There can, therefore, be no doubt, the Apex Court said, that equation of posts and equation of
salaries "is a complex matter which is best left to an expert body unless there is cogent
material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing
the pay scale for a given post and courts interference is absolutely necessary to undo the
injustice.
Reiterating the observations in State of Haryana v. H.C.S. Personal Staff Association 20, the
Apex Court held that pay parity between the Personal Assistants in State Secretariat and
Personal Assistants in Central Secretariat could not be claimed merely on the basis of identity
of designation. Ordering pay parity without comparing the nature of duties and
responsibilities of the P.A.s in the Central Secretariat and the P.A.s in the State Civil
Secretariat, the eligibility qualification fixed for their recruitment could not be sustained, the
Apex Court ruled. The Apex Court also observed that there could not be pay parity between
employees of State Government and Central Government.

EQUAL REMUNERATION ACT, 1976

20 AIR 2002 SC 2589.
22 | P a g e

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

The Indian Constitution expressly declares the principle of equality before law and the equal
protection of laws within the territory of India. However, the equal pay for equal work is not
declared as a fundamental right. Directive Principles of State Policy contained in
Article 39(d) envisage that the State shall direct its policy to secure that there is equal pay for
equal work for both men and women. This has assumed the status of a fundamental right in
service jurisprudence, having regard to the constitutional mandate of equality in Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has zealously enforced the fundamental right
to equal pay for equal work in effectuating the constitutional goal of equality and social
justice.21
To give effect to the aforesaid constitutional provisions, the President promulgated on the
26th September, 1975, the Equal Remuneration Ordinance, 1975, so that the provisions of
Article 39 could be implemented in the year which was being celebrated as the International
Womens Year. The Ordinance provided for payment of equal remuneration to men and
women workers for the same work or work of a similar nature and for the prevention of
discrimination on grounds of sex. The Ordinance ensured that there would be no
discrimination against recruitment of women and provided for setting up of Advisory
Committee to promote employment opportunities for Women.22
The Equal Remuneration Act was enacted in 1976 replacing the ordinance with the object, as
stated in its Preamble, to provide for the payment of equal remuneration to men and women
workers and for the prevention of discrimination on the ground of sex, against the women, in
the matter of employment and for the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
Section 2 of the Act provides that it shall come into force on such date as the Central
Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint and different dates may be
appointed for different establishment or employments.
Section 3 of the Act provides that the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding
anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law or in terms of any award,
agreement or contract of service, whether made before or after the commencement of this
Act, or in any instrument having effect under any law for the time being in force.
In Mackinnon Mackenzee & Co. Ltd. V Andrey D Cousta

23

it was held by the Supreme

Court that the management cannot rely on any settlement arrived at between the parties. The
21 Grih Kalyankendra Workers Union v. Union of India AIR 1991 SC 1173
22 SOR Gazette of India 6-1-1976, Part II, Section 2, extraordinary page 120
23 (1978) 71 AIR 415 (SC)
23 | P a g e

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

settlement has to yield in favour of the provisions of the Act. It was also held that the
financial capacity of the employers has nothing to do with the application of the Act.
Section 15 further provides that nothing in this Act shall apply:
(a) to cases affecting the terms and conditions of womans employment in complying with the
requirements of any law giving special treatment to women, or
(b) to any special treatment accorded to women in connection with:
(i) the birth or expected birth of a child, or
(ii) the terms and conditions relating to retirement, marriage or death or to any provision
made in connection with the retirement, marriage or death.
The various provisions for the payment of remuneration at equal rates are provided in
Chapter II of the Act and almost all the provisions point to similar ends and ultimately direct
the employers not to practice discrimination while recruitment, while payment or even while
considering employees for promotion. The Act also provides for maintenance of registers in
the organizations, creation of posts of Inspectors and other related offices to keep a check on
such prejudiced practices, which are likely to affect the provisions of the Act. It speaks
extensively of what the employers have to follow but is silent on the point of reasonable
classification which the apex court has pointed out freely and exhaustively. The Act does not,
also, lay any provision as to whether the qualifications of the employees are to be considered
while framing paying packages or not. The only thing which the Act points to is that the
employer must not discriminate on the basis of the sex of the worker if both man and woman
are doing same or similar kind of work.
Thus it is merely an enactment of Article 39(d) of the Constitution in its strict sense, leaving
the scope of interpretation to the Courts.
The need for such a directive was felt as:

Progress in fighting discrimination at work has always been uneven and patchy, such as
discrimination against women. Discrimination at work will not vanish by itself; neither

will the market, on its own, take care of it.

Inequalities within discriminated groups were widening. Affirmative action policies, for
example, helped create a new middle class of formerly-discriminated persons in some
countries. A few rise to the top of the social ladder, while most remain among the low

paid and socially excluded.

Discrimination often traps people in low-paid, informal economy jobs. The
discriminated are often stuck in the worst jobs, and denied benefits, social protection,

24 | P a g e

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

training, capital, land or credit. Women are more likely than men to be engaged in these

more invisible and undercounted activities.

The failure to eradicate discrimination helps perpetuate poverty. Discrimination creates a
vicious web of poverty, forced and child labour and social exclusion. Eliminating
discrimination is indispensable to any viable strategy for poverty reduction and

sustainable economic development.

Everyone gains from eliminating discrimination at work - individuals, enterprises and
society at large. Fairness and justice at the workplace boosts the self-esteem and morale
of workers. A more motivated and productive workforce enhances the productivity and
competitiveness of businesses.

Definitions (Section 2)
The important definitions given in the Act are as under:
(i) Appropriate Government [Section 2(a)]
Appropriate Government means:
(i) in relation to any employment carried on by or under the authority of the Central
Government or a railway administration, or in relation to a banking company, a mine, oilfield or major port or any corporation established by or under a Central Act, the Central
Government, and in relation to any other employment, the State Government.
(ii) Remuneration [Section 2(g)]
Remuneration means the basic wage or salary and any additional emoluments whatsoever
payable, either in cash or in kind to a person employed in respect of employment or work
done in such employment, if the terms of the contract of the employment, expressed or
implied, were fulfilled.
(iii) Same work or work of similar nature [Section 2(h)]
Same work or work of a similar nature means work in respect of which the skill, effort and
responsibility required are the same, when performed under similar working conditions, by a
man or a woman and the differences if any, between the skill, effort and responsibility
required of a man and those required of a woman are not of a practical importance in relation
to the terms and conditions of employment.
In Mackinnon Mackenzee & Co. Ltd. vs. Andrey D Cousta 24 it was held by the Supreme
Court that female and male stenographers perform identical duties and are entitled to equal
pay.
Duties of employers
24 (1987) Lab.I.C 961.
25 | P a g e

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

(i) Duty to pay equal remuneration to men and women for same work or work of similar
nature (Section 4)
Section 4 provides that no employer shall pay to any worker, employed by him in an
establishment or employment, remuneration, whether payable in cash or kind, at rates less
favourable than those at which remuneration is paid by him to the worker of the opposite sex
in such establishment or employment for performing the same work or work of a similar
nature.
It is also provided that no employer shall reduce the rate of wages for the purpose of
complying with the aforesaid provisions. In order to grant relief under section 4, employee
should establish that the remuneration paid by the employer, whether payable in cash or kind,
is being paid at rates less favourable than those at which remuneration is paid by him to the
employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for performing the same work or work
of a similar nature.
In deciding whether the work is same or broadly same, the authority should take a broad
view, next in ascertaining whether any differences are of practical importance, the authority
should take an equally broad approach, for the very concept of similar work implies
differences in details, but these should not defeat a claim for equality on trivial grounds.
(ii) No Discrimination to be made while recruiting men and women workers (Section 5)
Section 5 provides that on and from commencement of this Act, no employer shall, while
making recruitment for the same work or work of a similar nature, or in any condition of
service subsequent to recruitment such as promotion, training or transfer make any
discrimination against women, except where the employment of women in such work is
prohibited or restricted by or under any law for the time being in force.

26 | P a g e

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

(iii) Duty to maintain register (Section 8)
Section 8 prescribes that every employer shall maintain such registers and other documents
relating to workers employed by him. This register should be maintained in Form A of the
Equal Remuneration Rules, 1976.
Working of the Act
The Equal Remuneration Act was passed about thirty two years ago but number of violations
detected, prosecution launched, and convictions obtained have been extremely small. In fact,
almost all the cases have been in the central sector, though most of the employments covered
are in the state sectors.
Very few state governments, viz, Uttar Pradesh, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh and Himachal
Pradesh have reported cases of violation under the Equal Remuneration Act. One of the
reasons appears to be the inadequacy of the inspecting staff. The enforcement staff in the field
is burdened with the implementation of a very large number of Acts, and laws relating to
women and children are generally considered to be of low priority.
In order to implement effectively the different Acts pertaining to welfare of women workers,
state governments and Union territories were requested to set-up womens cell in their
respective states.
The State Governments of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa,
Karnataka, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi have set-up such cells. In the state of
Assam, the functions of the women cell are being looked after by the research cell. In
Arunachal Pradesh a womens cell exist under the Directorate of Public instructions.
The womens cell set-up in the Ministry of Labour in August 1976 has also been instrumental
in implementation of the Equal Remuneration Act, i.e. its extension to various employments
industries and examination of the difficulties, if any, point out by the units, industries, and
setting up of an advisory committee for the promotion of employment of women under the
Equal Remuneration Act and providing secretarial assistance to the committee.180
Indeed, there is not even a single piece of legislation in India guaranteeing a citizen equal pay
for equal work. No state machinery is there to protect the workers right to get equal pay for
equal work.
Of course, there is Equal Remuneration Act of 1976, which prohibits discrimination on the
ground of sex in wages recruitment and other matters related to or incidental to employment.
But the Act is in sufficient and ineffective. Firstly, it seeks to provide for payment of equal
remuneration to male and female workers, but it does not guarantee equal pay for equal work
among men. The absence of this specification led to judicial controversy. Secondly, it
27 | P a g e

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

provides for equal wages for men and women for same or similar work. Similar work is
defined as one in which the skill, effort and responsibility are same.
But the Government on subjective satisfaction has the power to declare that difference in
remuneration between men and women in a specific establishment is based on a factor other
than sex. Moreover, establishing that the work is same or similar is a tough task. For instance,
in the construction industry women helper carrying bricks are paid less than male helpers
who carry cement bags. There is no logic in the argument that carrying 50 kg of bricks is less
strenuous than carrying 50 kg of the cement. But a claim for equal pay could be easily
defeated by saying that it is not same or similar work.
That is the stark reality of million of workers in this country.Though legislation on labour
abound, a vast majority of the workers are still outside their place. This is because of the bulk
of the workforce is concentrated in the unorganized sector or the informal sector and laws by
and large cater only to the organized sector.185 Generally, workers do not invoke the justice
to redress their right to get equal pay for equal work due to fear of victimization and poverty.
It is submitted that the existence of this pathetic condition is due to lack of effective law and
also due to ineffective implementation of the existing law.

BURDEN OF PROOF
It has been held that discrimination within the meaning of Article 14 is the condition
precedent for the application of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. It is further
required that the burden of proving such discrimination lies on the claimant. Unless the
claimant places sufficient material before it to reach the conclusion to take definite decision,
the Court cannot decide the issue of entitlement of equal pay for equal work. 25 The
claimants would have to establish that they were rendering the same duties being performed
by those getting higher pay.26
The Court made it clear that to claim a relief on the basis of equality, it would be for the
claimants, to substantiate a clear cut basis of equivalence and a resultant hostile
discrimination, before becoming eligible to claim rights on par with the other group vis-a-vis
an alleged discrimination.27

25 State Bank of India v. M.R.Ganesh Babu, AIR 2002 SC 1955.

26 Dr. R.N.Sharma v. University of Rajasthan, 1997 (5) SLR (Raj.)369.
27 Chief Conservator of Forests v. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare, AIR 1996 SC 2898
28 | P a g e

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

As regards the equation of posts, the Apex Court has consistently held it to be purely an
administrative function, to be left to the executive government and must be determined by
expert bodies like Pay Commission. The Court should not try to tinker with such equivalence
unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration, or that the basis of
classification of posts is ex facie irrational, arbitrary or unjust.28
A mere nomenclature is not enough to come to a conclusion that the claimant is doing the
same work as done by the others. Equality is not based on designation or the nature of work
done but based on several factors.
The same amount of physical work may entail different quality of work, some more sensitive,
some requiring more tact some less, it varies from nature and culture of employment.

SUGGESTIONS
THE MEDIA CAN PLAY A PIVOTAL ROLE IN WAKING UP THE
GOVERNMENT FROM THEIR HIBERNATION AND COMPELLING IT TO
TAKE THE CHARGE OF THIS SO-CALLED PERSISTED PROBLEM THAT HAS
BEEN AILING THE COUNTRY.
CHANGING THE MINDSET OF PEOPLE.
CHALLENGING THE ORTHODOX THINKING.
ASSISTING WOMEN IN BREAKING FREE FROM SHACKLES OF ILLOGIC
AND IRRTANALITY.
ACCEPTING WOMEN IN MODERN ROLE.
INCULCATING EDUCATION TO EACH AND EVERY MEMBER OF SOCIETY
[TRICKLE DOWN EFFECT].
STRICT IMPLEMENTATION OF EQUAL REMUNERATION ACT, 1976
THE EQUAL REMUNERATION ACT SHOULD NOT ENTIRELY BE FOCUS
ONLY ON GENDER DISCRIMINATION.
EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK SHOULD BE EXPRESSLY MENTIONED AS
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT SO THAT IT CAN BE IMPLEMENTED STRICTLY.
THE CRITERIA TO DEFINE EQUAL WORK SHOULD BE CLEARLY
MENTIONED.

Recently the Delhi High Court upheld the principle of equal pay for equal work in a case
filed by women workers at a government-run cooperative store. In 1984, 49 women working

28 Union of India v. Dineshan, AIR 2008 SC 1028

29 | P a g e

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

as packers at the Super Bazaar Cooperative Store filed a case when they found that their male
counterparts, doing same or similar work, had been appointed at higher pay scales.
The single-judge bench, comprising Justice Madan B Lokur, while upholding the
constitutional basis enshrined in Article 14 which bars discrimination on grounds of sex and
Article 39 (d) which provides equal pay for equal work, observed that though there may be
some discrimination on certain well defined principles in the matter of pay scales there could
not be any inequality or discrimination only on gender grounds.
The verdict comes as a relief to the 49 women packers who fought a 20-year battle for the
right to equal pay. The women were appointed as packers at the store, along with their men
counterparts, in 1984. But they were given less pay compared to male workers doing the
same job.
Management at the cooperative store justified the discrimination on grounds of designation.
The women cleaned pulses and so on and were appointed as 'packing cleaners,' as opposed to
'packers' - the designation given to male employees who weighed the goods and packed them
using electrical appliances.
The appellate authority, emphasizing the different designations given to men and women
staff, had earlier passed a judgment in favour of the management, justifying the higher pay
scales for men staff. The order was quashed by the high court that claimed the appellate
authority's approach was flawed.
Justice Lokur referred to the statutory basis of the claim - India is a signatory to the
International Labour Organisation Convention concerning equal remuneration for men
and women workers for work of equal value. The judge also referred to the Convention for
the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, to which India is a
signatory, specifically to Article 11 that deals with the elimination of discrimination in the
field of employment.

30 | P a g e

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

Even renowned celebrities, from both Bollywood and Hollywood have left no stone unturned
in making their voices heard. A well Renowned Hollywood actress like Sandra Bullock aired
her disgust regarding the prevailing pay gap in following bold words:
Its a bigger issue than money. I know were focused on the money part right now.
Thats just a by-product. I keep saying, Why is it that no one is standing up and
saying you cant say that about a woman? Were mocked and judged in the media and
articles. Really, how men are described in articles versus women, theres a big
difference. I always make a joke: Watch, were going to walk down the red carpet,
Im going to be asked about my dress and my hair while the man standing next to me
will be asked about his performance and political issues.
Business Magnate, Indira Nooyi went a step further in not only claiming equal pay but also
equal treatment. She also stressed on the need for ameliorating the conditions of women in
complex and callous business world by instilling a sense of sisterhood among the women.
Asserting that women in workplace and society deserve equal treatment, PepsiCo's
India-born CEO, Indra Nooyi, said she "hates" being called "sweetie" or "honey" and
women should be respected as individuals and not addressed by such names.
"We still have to have equal treatment. I hate being called sweetie or honey at times
which I still am called. All that has got to go. We have got to be treated as
executives or people rather than honey, sweetie, babe. That has to change," Ms
31 | P a g e

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

Nooyi said on Friday at the 'Women In the World' Summit
presented by renowned journalist and author Tina Brown in association with the New
York Times.
Ms Nooyi said women have been in the "revolution mode" for "many many years",
from getting entry into the "boys club" to demanding parity in pay.
She said women have "clawed" their way into the workplace by getting their degrees,
good grades in school, which made the male counterparts "take note of us".
"We clawed our way into the revolution in this work place. Then we needed parity in
pay, not yet there we are still fighting for that," she said.
Ms Nooyi, however, lamented that women do not help other women in the workplace
as much as they should and asked women to make sisterhood more strong.
"There is a bigger issue we have to talk about. I don't believe women help women
enough in the workplace. Let's figure out how we can help each other way more than
we are today," Ms Nooyi said.
She said experts need to address why women compete with women too much in the
workplace when they should instead be helping each other out. She also pointed out
that women often do not take feedback from other women positively.
"We assume feedback from women means something is wrong but if that same
feedback came to us from men we are willing to accept it or worse still we don't give
the feedback to women the way we should," she said.
"I think we have to change our whole approach to supporting each other taking advice
from each other, seeking it out," she said. "The sisterhood has to become way stronger
than it is today."
She said that while there is interaction of helping women in the workplace, the fact
that has been ignored is how to help this interaction between the woman and her
32 | P a g e

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

personal life as she assumes the role of a daughter, wife, mother and daughter-in-law.
Ms Nooyi, among the most powerful and influential businesswomen in the world, said
companies and individuals have not yet talked about the "big revolution" of how
societies, governments, companies and families help women as they give birth, take
care of young children and aging parents and at the same time manage a career.29

29 I Hate Being Called 'Sweetie' Or 'Honey, downloaded from,

http://profit.ndtv.com/news/people/article-i-hate-being-called-sweetie-or-honey-says-pepsicos-indranooyi-1344365, on 5th April 2016.
33 | P a g e

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

STTAGERING STATISTICS

34 | P a g e

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

35 | P a g e

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

36 | P a g e

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

April 14 was Equal Pay Day for the Year 2014. Why that date? It has nothing to do with the
check to the IRS you may still have to remit. Its symbolically more painful than that:
Because of the gender wage gap, women had to work from January 1, 2014 to April 14, 2015
to earn the same amount of money that men earned between January 1, 2014 and December
31, 2014.
According to the National Partnership for Women and Families, women today are still paid
only $0.78 for every dollar a man earns, which amounts to a yearly wage gap of a whopping
$10,876 between full-time working men and women. Though the amount varies slightly, a
wage gap exists across all industries, occupations and levels of education.30
The next Equal Pay Day is Tuesday, April 12, 2016. This date symbolizes how far into the
year women must work to earn what men earned in the previous year.31

30 Equal Pay Day is April 12Time to Even the Playing Field!, downloaded from
http://www.workingmother.com/content/equal-pay-day-april-14-2015-wage-gap, on 6th April 2016.

31 National Committee on Pay Equity, downloaded from http://www.pay-equity.org/day.html, on 6th

April 2016.
37 | P a g e

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

BIBLIOGRAPHY
STATUTES/RULES
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

WEB SITES/ E-SOURCES

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK: THE LAW REVISITED, downloaded from,
http://legalperspectives.blogspot.in/2010/06/equal-pay-for-equal-work-lawrevisited.html, on 5th April 2016.
EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK, downloaded from,
http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/28562/9/09_chapter%202.pdf,
on 5th April 2016.
I HATE BEING CALLED 'SWEETIE' OR 'HONEY, downloaded from,
http://profit.ndtv.com/news/people/article-i-hate-being-called-sweetie-or-honey-sayspepsicos-indra-nooyi-1344365, on 5th April 2016.
EQUAL PAY DAY IS APRIL 12TIME TO EVEN THE PLAYING FIELD, downloaded
from http://www.workingmother.com/content/equal-pay-day-april-14-2015-wage-gap,
on 6th April 2016.
NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON PAY EQUITY, downloaded from http://www.payequity.org/day.html, on 6th April 2016.
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK,
downloaded from, https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/04/08/remarkspresident-equal-pay-equal-work, on 7th April 2016.
JOHN F. KENNEDY, downloaded from, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?
pid=9267, on 7th April 2016.

38 | P a g e