TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….Pg.05

Aims And Objectives………………………………………………………………….Pg.07

Hypothesis…………………………………………………………………………………Pg.07

Research &Methodology…………………………………………………………….Pg.092.

Constittutional Perspective…………………………………….………………7

-12

Cases To Understand Equal Pay For Equal Work3.

Legislative Perspective……………………………………

13-144. Payment Of Remuneration At Equal Rates To Men And Women Worker AndOther Matter..15-18

5.Conclusion…………

Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………pg.24

The topic of our project is Equal Pay for Equal Work-Constitutional and Labour legislation perspective .In
our project we have tried to understand the concept of equal pay and workfrom the constitutional
perspective and understanding the roots of the concept from theconstitution, understanding how the
concept emerged from the fundamental rights andthereon trying to understand the inclusion of the
concept in various acts, eg EqualRemuneration Act, Contract Labour, Factories Act etc. The preamble of
the Constitution ofIndia is an introduction to the Constitution and lays down in brief the aims and
objectives of the policy framers of the Union of India. It enunciates those socio-economic goals and
endswhich are to be achieved by the Indian Constitution. These goals are multitudinous in natureand
secure for the citizens of India (in some cases for foreigners as well) a variety of rightsand ensure justice,
liberty, equality, and fraternity to all. Part IV of the Constitution laysdown the Directive Principle of State
Policy. This novel feature, envisaged by ourConstitution, was borrowed from the Constitution of Ireland,
which itself had borrowed itfrom the Spanish Constitution. These Directive Principles lay down the basic
aims andobjectives of the States, to be followed in the governance of the country. They are more orless
the guidelines, directing the government as to what is to be kept in contemplation whileframing the
policies. They can also be termed as a distinct set of moral duties, to beimplemented by the state, while
giving shape to legislations and provisions of the State .Inother words Directive Principles act as a device
for making the Government conform to theideals, which the Constitution lays, for the attainment of
democracy in its true sense i.e.political as well as economic. This can be done only when the
Government complies withthese stated objectives and makes an attempt to make India welfare state in
real as well as practical terms. They are however non-justifiable rights on the people, which set out
theeconomic ,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 socialvalues like education,
employment, health etc .The reason for their non-enforce ability is thatthey impose a positive obligation
upon the state and it is while taking actions forimplementing these obligations that there arise several
limitations to the Government, onesuch constraint being the availability of resources. The purpose for
enunciating

[Type the document title]

CHANAKYA NATIONA L LAW UNIVERSITY

The extent of enforceability of directive principles of state policy is of relevance in the present

Topic because the concept of equality of pay i.e. “equal pay for equal work” being a part of

These Directive Principles is to hold the same fate as other Directive Principles. However, theCourts in
India and the Supreme Court in particular have constantly and consistently regardedthe principle of
equal pay for equal work as a constitutional goal ,much higher than being amere Directive Principle, and
have subsequently enforced it in-tandem with the fundamentalrights, enshrined under Right to Equality
(Art. 14-18).The primary purpose of this research project is to study the various interpretations which
have been made by the Supreme Court while adjudicating the cases, involving the concept ofEqual pay
for Equal work as enshrined in Article 39(d) of the Constitution. The topic is ofgreat relevance on the
contemporary world as it is being felt that considering and stating thatall men are equal is not enough
but a concrete step or rather a series of steps need to be takento bring the concept of classless society
into existence and the applicability of the concept ofequal pay for equal work is one of such steps, taken
to wipe out any scope of unreasonablediscrimination as which may occur or may be followed in any
form of society when it comesto payment of remuneration. This research project is an attempt to grasp
the variousinterpretations the concept holds and the different analogies, which can be formed to save
the people from the clutches of irrational discrimination. An equal pay legislation such as theEqual
Remuneration Act in India, seeks to determine wages on the basis of a politicallymotivating or social
justice related factor, in this case ,gender. The mutual incompatibility of the two sets of factors is
obvious. While the first set might generate an efficient labour force,the second set has absolutely no
relation to productivity, and hence cannot work towards anefficient labour force .If a firm overpays, it
would eventually have to close down since itwould run out of money. At the same time, if a firm
underpays, it is would still not be a profityielding practice since it would lose employees to competitors.
To add to it, it would sufferfrom over optimal quit-rates, and have to invest additionally in hiring, firing,
and othertraining expenses. While clearly, the search for profit would cause some entrepreneurs to
setaside their taste for discrimination, it is nevertheless true that others would be willing to incurthe
cost. These employers would then be paying the price of discrimination in the form ofdecreased profits.

AIMS AND OBJCTIVE

[Type the document title]

CHANAKYA NATIONA L LAW UNIVERSITY

The main objective to understand about the equal pay for equal work and project we havetried to
understand the concept of equal pay and work from the constitutional perspective andunderstanding
the roots of the concept from the constitution, understanding how the conceptemerged from the
fundamental rights and thereon trying to understand the inclusion of theconcept in various acts

METHODOLOGY OF DATA

For the purpose of research

The researcher will be relying on the “ Doctrinal method” ” to

Look for information related to the topic equal pay for equal work under equal remuneration

Act 1976”.

SOURCES OF DATA

For the purpose of research the researcher will be relying on the primary and secondary

Sources ” to look for information related to the topic “equal pay for equal work under
equalremuneration act 1976”.
LIMITATIONS OF THE PROJECT

The Project Is To Be Completed With In Semester Requirement And Due To Pausity OfTime Not Much
Wider Study Can Be Coducted.

[Type the document title]

CHANAKYA NATIONA L LAW UNIVERSITY

2.CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE

It can be seen that considering and stating that all men are equal is not enough but a concretestep or
rather a series of steps need to be taken to bring the concept of classless society intoexistence and the
applicability of the concept of equal pay for equal work is one of suchsteps, taken to wipe out any scope
of unreasonable discrimination as which may occur ormaybe followed in any form of society when it
comes to payment of remuneration. Theconcept of Equality of pay was incorporated under the Directive
Principles of State Policy bythe framers of the Constitution so as to follow the principles of Equality and
make India awelfare State i.e. a country aimed at creating an egalitarian society. However the
applicationof the concept of Equality of pay was restricted only up to the discrimination on basis
ofgender and sex as under the principle laid down under Article 39which states as follows; TheState
shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that there is equal pay for equalwork for both men
and women. Thus the framers of the Constitution incorporated this provision to wipe out any
discrimination made against women or men in regards to the termsof pay. However, going strictly
according to the provision, it nowhere states that this conceptof equality of pay is to be followed even in
terms of employment as of between man and manor woman and woman i.e. it does not grant a right
that man must be paid equally amongthemselves and woman among themselves if they perform the
same kind of work. Theaforesaid provision also does not state any distinction between the capacity of
these men andwomen and that has to be constructed by the Courts themselves.Thus it is clear that
while framers of the Constitution incorporated this provision, they onlykept in contemplation that there
should not be any discrimination in terms of pay on groundsof sex or gender of the person.It has to be
stated here that though it is the primary task of theemployer not to discriminate on the basis of sex, the
Constitution does not provide for anyclassification that the employer can make such as on the basis of
qualification and level ofskill of the employee i.e. if the workers perform the same task, they have to be
treated equallywithout any discrimination thereof. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution explains the
conceptof Equality before law. The concept of equality does not mean absolute equality amonghuman
beings which is physically not possible to achieve. It is a concept implying absence ofany special privilege
by reason of birth, creed or the like in favour of any individual, and alsothe equal subject of all
individuals and classes to the ordinary law of the land. As Dr.

[Type the document title]

CHANAKYA NATIONA L LAW UNIVERSITY

Jennings puts it: “Equality before the law means that among equals the law should be equaland should
be equally administered, that like should be treated alike. It only means that all persons similarly
circumstance shall be treated alike both in the privileges conferred andliabilities imposed by the laws.
Equal law should be applied to all in the same situation, andthere should be no discrimination between
one person and another. As regards the subject-matter of the legislation their position is the same. Thus,
the rule is that the like should betreated alike and not that unlike should be treated alike.

CASES TO UNDERSTAND THE CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE

. Randhir Singh v. Union of India

In this case, the petitioner was a Driver-Constable in theDelhi Police Force under Delhi Administration
who claimed that his scale of pay should bethe same as the scale of pay of other drivers in the service of
the Delhi Administration as hedischarged the same duties as the rest of the drivers in the other offices.
He stated that therewas no reason whatsoever to discriminate against the petitioner and other driver-
constablesmerely because he and his ilk were described as constables belonging to the Police
Forceinstead of ordinary drivers, who had a greater pay scale. In this landmark case the courtconceded
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 todecide but persons holding
identical posts were not to be treated differentially in the mattersof pay merely because they belonged
to different departments. It was this case in which theCourt held for the first time that though the
principle of equal pay for equal work was notexpressly declared by the Constitution to be a fundamental
right, it was certainly aconstitutional 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 forequal work‟

Or everyone as and between sexes. The Court extended the purview of thedoctrine under Right of
Equality and stated that Art.14of the Constitution enjoined the Statenot to deny any person equality
before the law or the equal protection of the laws andsimultaneously Art. 16 declared that there shall
be equality of opportunity for all citizens .Inmatters relating to employment or appointment to any
office under the State and it was in thiscontext that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work was to be
adjudged.

1982 L.L.J. 344

10

[Type the document title]

CHANAKYA NATIONA L LAW UNIVERSITY

10

.2. Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wages Employees Association v. State ofKarnataka

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 issuingdirections to Government to confirm the
daily rated and monthly rated employees as regulargovernment servants and for payment of normal
salaries to those workers employed undertemporary terms. The petitions were made, pleading that
about 50,000 daily-wage workerswere employed in the different Government establishments and
though many of them had putin 16to 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 theCourt. The petitions claimed for the pay of such workmen at the rates equivalent to theminimum
pay in the pay-scales of the regularly employed workers. The Court laid that theequality clauses of the
Constitution under Articles 14 and 16 were to be construed in the lightof the Preamble and Article 39(d),
and it followed that the principle.Equal pay for equal workwas deducible from those Articles and could
properly be applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based on the classification or irrational
classification.

2. Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers v. Union Of India
Inthis 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 Customsand
Central Excise Departments under the Ministry of Finance. They asserted that they werediscriminated
vis-à-vis personal assistants and stenographers attached to the joint secretariesand officers above them
in the Ministry. They contended that the type of work was the sameand in fact they had more work to
be done. The Respondents in return emphasized that thedifference in the functional requirements of
the work done was one of the points for suchdiscrimination. The respondents also stated that while
devising the pay-scales of various posts and categories, the degree of skill, experience involved, training
required, responsibilitytaken, strain, fatigue, risk and confidentiality undertaken, mental and physical
requirementswere factors borne in mind. The Respondent also emphasised that though the duties
andworks were identical between the petitioners and their counterparts attached to the Secretariesin
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 paymust depend uponthe nature of the work done and it cannot be judged by

(1991) II L.L.J. 318 (SC)

Scribd

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions!

Start Free Trial

Cancel Anytime.

11

[Type the document title]

CHANAKYA NATIONA L LAW UNIVERSITY

11
The mere volume of work.The Courtre-emphasised that equal pay for equal work was aconcomitant of
Article 14 of the Constitution and it naturally followed that equal pay forunequal work was a negation of
that right.The Court also took a great step by laying downthat the interpretation of Article39(d) was to
be read in the Fundamental Rights, underArticles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.So the principle of equal
pay for equal work, thoughnot expressly declared by ourConstitution tobe a fundamental right, was a
constitutional goal.Construing Articles 14 and16 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 orirrational
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 anabstract doctrine.
Equality must be among equals, unequalscannot claim equality. Even if the duties and functions are of
similar nature but if theeducational qualifications prescribed for the two postsare different and there is
difference inmeasure 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.In

Deena v. Union of India

It was held that labor taken from prisoners without paying proper remuneration was”forcedlabor” and
violation of Art. 23 of the Constitution. The prisoners are entitled to payment ofreasonable wages for
the work taken from them and theCourt is under duty toenforce theirclaim.There shall be equality of
opportunity for all citizensin matters relating toemployment orappointment to any office under the
State. No citizenshall, on grounds only ofreligion, race,caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or
any ofthem, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office underthe
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 undera moral obligation to
achieve and maximize social welfare and basic social values likeeducation, employment, health etc.The
reason for non-enforceability, as M.P. Jain1 describes,is that they impose a positive obligation upon the
state and it is while taking actions forimplementing the obligations that there arise several limitations to
the Government, one suchconstraint being the availability of resources. However, the Courts in India
and the SupremeCourt in particular have constantly and consistently regarded the principle of equal pay
for

12

[Type the document title]

I

CHANAKYA NATIONA L LAW UNIVERSITY

12

Equal work as a constitutional goal, much higher than being a mere Directive Principle, andhave
subsequently enforced it in-tandem with the fundamental rights, enshrined under Rightto Equality (Art.
14-18). Article 39(d)Thus it is clear that while framers of the Constitutionincorporated this provision,
they only kept in contemplation that there should not be anydiscrimination in terms of pay on grounds
of sex or gender of the person. The Supreme Courtcontinuously and consistently increasing the purview
of this doctrine has gone far off to makenew interpretations so that any sort of discrimination,unless
based on reasonable grounds,does no tgo un-refuted.The Act does not, also, lay any provision as to
whether thequalifications of the employees are to be considered while framing paying packages or
not.The only thing which the Act point to is that the employer must not discriminate on the basisof the
sex of the worker if both man and woman are doing same or similar kind ofwork.Persons holding
identical posts were not to be treated differentially in the matters of paymerely because they belonged
to Different departments. It was this case in which the Courtheld for the first time that though the
principle of equal pay for equal work was not expresslydeclared by the Constitution to be a fundamental
right, it was certainly a constitutional Goal.The Court also first

Timecontemplated the fact that the doctrine proclaiming „Equal pay forequal work‟ for bothmenand
women meant „Equal pay for equal work‟ for everyone as and

Between sex

Es.The Court also held that „the classification of persons performing the same

Work into senior and junior groups with different pay will be a violation of the principle ofequal pay for
equal

Work.‟The apex Court held that the scope of Equal Remuneration

Actwould be invited when there were any disparities of terms of pay within same levels even ifthe
organisation had financial constraints. The Court laid that the applicability of the Act doesnot depend
upon the financial ability of the management to pay equal remuneration as provided by it. . TheSupreme
Court gave a landmark decision and stating the various socialand materialrequirements held that
inaddition to the principle of equal pay for equal work, the paystructure of the employees of the
government was also to reflect other social values.Thedegree of skill, the strain of work, experience
involved, trainingrequired,responsibilityundertaken, mental and physical requirements,
disagreeableness of thetask hazards involvedetc. Were some of the relevant factors which were to be
takenintoconsideration while fixingthe pay scales. The method of recruitment, the level at
whichtherecruitment was made in thehierarchy of service or cadre, minimum educational
andtechnicalrequirements prescribed for the post, were also some of the relevant factors. The
payingcapacity of the government was alsoto be taken into consideration. Thus the Court laid
13

[Type the document title]

CHANAKYA NATIONA L LAW UNIVERSITY

13

Thecomplete rational and logical nexus fordetermination of pays. The Court held that it couldnotbe said
that the doctri

Ne of „Equal pay forequal work‟ was a mere abstract doctrine and

That it was not capable of being enforced in a courtof law.If the classification is proper andreasonable
the doctrine of equal pay for equal work willnothave any application even thoughthe persons doing the
same work are not getting the same pay.A temporary or casualemployee performing the same duties
and functions isentitled to the samepay as paid to a permanent employee. Similarly, the difference in
mode ofselection will notaffect theapplication of the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” if boththe
classes of personsperformsimilar functions and duties under the same employer.

14

[Type the document title]

CHANAKYA NATIONA L LAW UNIVERSITY

14

3.LEGISLATIVE PERSPECTIVE

Major points of consideration that have come up during our study are:

The concept ofequality does not mean absolute equality among human beings which isphysically 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 theequal subject of all individualsand classes to the ordinary
law of the land.


Equal law should be applied to all in the samesituation, and there should be nodiscrimination between
one person and another.

TheSupreme Court has held that although the principle of equal pay for equal work isnotexpressly
declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right, but it is certainlyaconstitutional goal under
Articles 14, 16 and 39 © of the Constitution

It has been heldthat the principle of equal pay for equal work is also applicable to casualworkers
employedon daily wage basis

. the Supreme Court has held that different pay scales can be fixed forgovernment servantsholding same
post and performing similar work on the basis ofdifference in degree ofresponsibility, reliability and
confidentiality, and as such it will not beviolative of theprinciple of equal pay for equal work, implicit in
Article 14. The Court said,”Equal paymust depend upon the nature of the work done. It cannot be
judged by the merevolume ofwork. There may be qualitative difference as regards reliability
andresponsibility.

Gender inequities throughout the world are among the most all-pervasiveforms of inequality.Gender
equality concerns each and every member of the society andforms

The very basis of ajust society and hence, the issue of „gender justice‟ is of enormous

Magnitude and ofmammoth ramification engulfing an all-embracing and illimitable canvas.

In the midnight ofAugust 15, 1947, when India awoke to “life and freedom”, most

Of its 170million women .

Scarcely knew what the „Tryst with Destiny‟ was all about. Victims of

Poverty, ignorance andoppressive social institutions, they hardly knew their destiny and whocontrolled
it. However,the stalwarts who led India to its independence were aware that if the new India of
theirdreams was to become a reality and not remain only a figment ofimagination, it would needsocial
engineering on a massive scale, in respect of the backward

RandhirSingh v. Union of India

4

DhirendraChamoli v. State of U.P

F.A.I.C. and C.E.S. v. Union of India

15

[Type the document title]

CHANAKYA NATIONA L LAW UNIVERSITY

15

And oppressed sections of the society and above all, its women.It has to be stated here thatthough it is
the primary task of the employer not todiscriminate on the basis of sex (as mademandatory by the
Supreme Court in recentjudgments), theConstitution does not provide forany classification that the
employercan make such as on thebasis of qualification and level ofskill of the employee i.e. ifthe
workers perform the sametask, they have to be treated equallywithout anydiscrimination
thereof.Though the articlespeaks only as to discrimination betweenman and woman, theconcept of
equal pay for equalwork has been applied in generality to allwithout any hintof gender or class. The
Supreme Court continuously and consistentlyincreasing thepurview of this doctrine has gone far off
tomake new interpretations so that anysort ofdiscrimination, unless based on reasonable grounds, does
not go un-refuted. Theverypurpose and nature of the said article has been changed by the apex court
and the articlewhich was originally instilled to support woman in there right of equal status isnow
appliedto now employed to nullify any sort of rule andprovision which tends to affect the rights
ofworkers to get equal pay if they perform the samekind of work in similar organizations.However the
Supreme Court has added a new clause tothearticle in the way of reasonablenexus of discrimination .
This reasonable nexusincludesthe qualifications of the employees,capacity of the workers and many
more. The listisendless and new points of classificationsare incorporated in it as and when
theSupremeCourt says so.In the coming part of thedocument, we have tried to study the Equal Pay for
Equal Work-from the Labour legislation perspective, by studying the different acts-1. EQUAL
REMUNERATION ACT, 1976For the purpose of incorporating and giving effectto the Constitutional
directive of Equalpayfor equal work, The Equal Remuneration Act,1976 was passed. The objects
andreasons of the Act states that President of India promulgatedThe Equal RemunerationOrdinance,
1975on 26th September, 1975 so that the provision ofArt. 39(d) wasimplemented in the year,which was
being celebrated as the International
Woman‟sYear. The ordinance was brought toeffect to provide for payment of

EqualRemuneration to both man and woman workers for the same work or work ofsimilarnature and for
the prevention of discrimination on grounds of sex..

16

[Type the document title]

CHANAKYA NATIONA L LAW UNIVERSITY

16

4.PAYMENT OF REMUNERATION AT EQUAL RATES TO MEN AND WOMEN WORKER ANDOTHER MATTER

4. Duty of employer to pay equal remuneration to men and women workers for same workor work of a
similar nature. –

(1) No employer shall pay to any worker, employed by him inan establishment or employment,
remuneration, whether payable in cash or in kind, at ratesless favourable than those at which
remuneration is paid by him to the workers of theopposite sex in such establishment or employment for
performing the same work or work of asimilar nature.(2)

No employer shall, for the purpose of complying with the provisions of sub-section(1), reduce the rate
of remuneration of any worker.(3)

Where, in an establishment or employment, the rates of remuneration payable before

thecommencement of this Act for men and women workers for the same work or work of asimilar
nature are different only on the ground of sex, then the higher (in cases wherethere are only two rates),
or, as the case may be, the highest (in cases where there are onlytwo rates), of such rates shall be the
rate at which remuneration shall be payable, on andfrom such commencement, to such men and
women workers:Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to entitle a worker to the
revision of the rate of remuneration payable to him or her with reference to the service rendered by
himor her before the commencement of this Act.

In M/s .Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. ltd. V. Andrey D’costa an another a female

Confidential stenographer after the termination of her services filed a petition under subsection 1 of
section 7 of equal remuneration act 1976 complaining that during period ofservice she was paid
remuneration at lesser rate than those male stenographer who were also performing the same or
similar work. It Was held that in order to get relief under section 4 of the act the employee should
establish that the remuneration paid by the employer whether payable in cash or kind, is being paid at
rates less favorable than those at which remunerationis paid by him to the employee of the opposite sex
in such establishment for performing the same work or work of similar nature.Whether the work is
similar in nature as another work

17

[Type the document title]

CHANAKYA NATIONA L LAW UNIVERSITY

17

Can be determined on three consideration First the authority should take a broad view as alsoa broad
approach should be adopted in ascertaining whether any difference are of practicalnature. Secondly
actual duties performed should be looked at and not those theoretically possible. In making comparison
the authority should look at the duties generally performed by men women. Thirdly where both men
and women work at inconvenient times there is norequirement that all those who work at night shall be
paid the same basic rate as those whowork during normal day shifts.It was further held that it may be
that the management was not employing any male asconfidential stenographer attached to the senior
Executives in the establishment and that therewas no transfer of confidential lady stenographers where
male were working. It, however,ought not to make any difference for purpose of application of the act
when once it isestablished that the lady stenographer were doing practically, the same kind of work
whichthe male stenographer were discharging.

It was also held that the act doe

S not permit the management to pay to a section of itsemployees doing the same work or work of a
similar nature lesser pay contrary to section4(1) o fthe act because of it financial position which does not
permit payment of equalremuneration to all. The applicability of the act does not depend the financial
ability ofmanagement to pay equal remuneration as provided by the act.

5.
No discrimination to be made while recruiting men and women workers. –

On andfrom the 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 torecruitment such as promotions, training or transfer], make
any discrimination againstwomen except where the employment of women in such work is prohibited
or restricted byor under any law for the time being in force:Provided that the provisions of this section
shall not affect any priority or reservation forscheduled castes or scheduled tribes, ex-servicemen,
retrenched employees of any other class

Mackenzie Mackinnon & Co. LTD. V. Andrey D’costa and another, (1987) I L.L.J. 536

Ibid.

Inserted by Act 49 of 1987, S.2

18

[Type the document title]

CHANAKYA NATIONA L LAW UNIVERSITY

18

Or category of persons in the matter of recruitment to the posts in an establishment oremployment.

6.

Advisory Committee. –

(1) For the purpose of providing increasing employmentopportunities for women, the appropriate
Government shall constitute one or more AdvisoryCommittees to advise it with regard to the
 extend to which women may be employed in suchestablishments or employments as the
Central Government may, by notification, specify inthis behalf.(2)

Every Advisory Committee shall consist of not less than ten persons, to be nominated bythe appropriate
Government, of which one-half shall be women.(3)

In tendering its advice, the Advisory Committee shall have regard to the number ofwomen employed in
the concerned establishment or employment, the nature of work,hours of work, suitability of women
for employment, as the case may be, the need for providing increasing employment opportunities for
women, including part-timeemployment, and such other relevant factors as the Committee may think
fit.(4)

The Advisory Committee shall regulate its own procedure.(5)

The appropriate Government may, after considering the advice tendered to it by theAdvisory Committee
and after giving to the persons concerned in the establishment oremployment an opportunity to make
representations, issue such directions in respect ofemployment of women workers, as the appropriate
Government may think fit.

7. Power of appropriate Government to appoint authorities for hearing and deciding claimsand
complaints. –

(1) The appropriate Government may, by notification, appoint suchofficers, not below the rank of a
Labour Officer, as it thinks fit to be the authorities for the purpose of hearing and deciding

(a)

Complaints with regard to the contravention of any provision of this Act;

Claims arising out of non-payment of wages at equal rates to men and women workersfor the same
work or work of a similar nature,and may, by the same or subsequent notification, define the local limits
within which each,such authority shall exercise its jurisdiction.(2)

Every complaint or claim referred to in sub-section (1) shall be made in such manneras may be
prescribed.(3)
If any question arises as to whether two or more works are of the same nature or of asimilar nature, it
shall be decided by the authority appointed under sub-section (1).(4)

Where a complaint or claim is made to the authority appointed under sub-section (1) itmay, after giving
the applicant and the employer an opportunity of being heard, and aftersuch inquiry as it may consider
necessary, direct,

(i)

In the case of a claim arising out of a non-payment of wages at equal rates to menand women workers
for the same work or work of a similar nature, that payment be made to the worker of the amount by
which the wages payable to him exceedthe amount actually paid;(ii)

In the case of complaint, that adequate steps be taken by the employer so as toensure that there is no
contravention of any provision of this Act.(5)

Every authority appointed under sub-section (1) shall have all the powers of a CivilCourt under the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), for the purpose of takingevidence and of enforcing the attendance
of witnesses and compelling the production ofdocuments, and every such authority shall be deemed to
be a Civil Court for all the purposesof Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1974).(6)

Any employer or worker aggrieved by any order made by an authority appointedunder sub-section (1),
on a complaint or claim may, within thirty days from the date of the

20

[Type the document title]

CHANAKYA NATIONA L LAW UNIVERSITY

20
Order, prefer an appeal to such authority as the appropriate Government may, by notification,specify in
this behalf, and that authority may, after hearing the appeal, confirm, modify orreverse the order
appealed against and no further appeal shall lie against the order made bysuch authority.(7)

The authority referred to in sub-section (6) may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by
sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period specified in sub-section (6), allow the
appeal to be preferred within a further period of thirty days but notthereafter.(8)

The provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), shall
apply for the recovery of monies due from an employer arising out ofdecision of an authority appointed
under this section.

Dismiss user rating prompt

Improve Your Experience

Rating will help us to suggest even better related documents to all of our readers!

0% found this document useful, Mark this document as usefulUseful

0% found this document not useful, Mark this document as not usefulNot useful

21

[Type the document title]

CHANAKYA NATIONA L LAW UNIVERSITY

21

5.CONCLUSION& SUGGESTIONS

.The various provisions for the payment of remuneration at equal rates are providedinChapterII of the
Act and almost all the provisions point to similar ends and ultimatelydirecttheemployers not to practice
discrimination while recruitment, while payment orevenwhileconsidering employees for promotion. The
Act also provides formaintenance ofregisters in the organisations, creation of posts of Inspectors and
otherrelated offices to keep acheck onsuch prejudiced practices, which are likely to affectthe provisions
of the Act. Itspeaksextensively of what the employers have to follow butis silent on the point
ofreasonable classification with the apex court has pointed outfreely and exhaustively. The Actdoes
not,also, lay any provision as to whether thequalifications of the employees are to beconsideredwhile
framing paying packages ornot. The only thing which the Act point to is thattheemployer must not
discriminate on the basis of the sex of the worker if both man andwomanare doing same or similar
kindof work. Thus it is merely an enactment of Article 39(d)of theConstitution in its strictsense, leaving
the scope of interpretation to the Courts.

SUGGESTIONS

1. The equal remuneration act should not focus only on gender discrimination.2. Equal pay for
equal work should be mentioned as constitutional goal in writing so that itcan be implemented
strictly.3. The degree of skill, the strain of work, experience involved, training
required,responsibility undertaken, mental and physical requirements, disagreeableness of the
task,hazards involved etc. were some of the relevant factors which were to be taken
intoconsideration while fixing the pay scales. The method of recruitment, the level at which
therecruitment was made in the hierarchy of service or cadre, minimum educational
andtechnical requirements prescribed for the post, were also some of the relevant factors.4.
The criteria to define equal work should be clearly mentioned.

22

[Type the document title]

CHANAKYA NATIONA L LAW UNIVERSITY

22

BIBLIOGRAPHY

www.lawyersclubindia.com

www.indiankanoon.com


http://www.indianlawcases.com/

Acts

General clauses Act, 1897

Equal remuneration act 1976

Books

Mishra .s.n, Labour and industrial laws, 27

Th

Edition, central lawpublication,Allahabad, 2013.

DrGoswami, labour laws, central law agency, Allahabad, 2012

Chaturvedi, labour laws, central law agency, Allahabad, 2012