UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM & ENERGY STUDIES

SCHOOL OF LAW

BB.A.LL.B. (HONS.) WITH SPECIALIZATION IN Corporate LAWS

SEMESTER VIII

BATCH: 2015-2020 SESSION: JANUARY- MAY

PROJECT
ON
Equal Pay for Equal Work
FOR
Labour Law

Under the Supervision of: Prof. Naveen Pal Singh

SUBMITTED BY:

Megha Bhatia 500045959 R760215037

Vishnushree Modi 500047865 R760215079
Mayank 500046069 R760215083
Aanchal Gagneja 500048282 R760215091

Page 1 of 16
Acknowledgement

The success and final outcome of this project required a lot of guidance and assistance from many
people and we are extremely fortunate to have got this all along the completion of our project
work.

We respect and thank to our faculty teacher, Prof. Naveen Pal Singh for giving us an opportunity
to do the project work on “Equal pay for Equal work” and providing support and guidance
which made us complete the project on time. We are extremely grateful to her for providing such a
nice support and guidance though she is having a busy schedule in managing the college affairs.

We would not forget to remember our friends who gave constructive ideas for the project and
helped us with the presentation part of the project.

We are thankful to and fortunate enough to get constant encouragement, support and guidance
from our parents who helped us in successfully completing our project work. Also, we would like
to extend our sincere regards to the staff department of library for their timely support.

Page 2 of 16
Table of index

Chapter Topic Page

Number Number

1 Introduction 4-5

2 Equal Pay for Equal Work 6-9

3 Judicial Trends 10-14

Conclusion 15

Bibliography 16

Page 3 of 16
 Chapter 1
Introduction

General Introduction – The Inequality between humans in society and the different types of
employees in an industrial and other establishment has been and is perpetual by nature in our
social and industrial setup ever since the inception. Such an inequality has its vast influence and
deep engravings in the remuneration structure too. Such an inequality exists due to sociological,
ethical factors coupled with lack of bargaining power of such sects in the respective areas of work.
The economic oppression of women and workmen in the industrial setup is visible and has its own
history. The connecting gravity attributed to this issue and the constantly changing dynamics of
the society has provided an impetus to recognize and discuss this issue that depicts the paralysis
with which the society and industrial community was plagued. The Industrial Revolution 1 and
demands during the World Wars2 were contributing factors due to which women started to take
part in the mainstream industrial setups all around the world and the same stands true for India and
industrial setups in India. The wage and the rights of the women as workmen were not recognized
then.
In India, the recognition of the issue of inequality and the movement for upliftment of women and
workmen was done only post-independence. The government and state did work out safeguards
through protective and welfare legislations to preserve the interest and serve the purpose of
upliftment of the weaker section of the society. Despite the functionality and machinery of the law
for support and the rising education proportion, workmen especially women, temporary
employees and apprentices continue be subjected to inequality and exploitation.

The Principle Of ‘Equal Pay For Equal Work’ - The principal of ‘Equal Pay For Equal Work’
states that ceteris paribus where the persons in consideration work on materially similar/identical
status or post in the organization, perform similar functions and handle identical duties,
responsibilities and are accountable on identical extent and degree such persons shall not be
treated differently in respect of their remuneration. This principle works together with its natural
corollary “Unequal Pay For Unequal Work” which provides justification for of relative wages.

The Constitution Of India And ‘Equal Pay For Equal Work’ – The constitution of India
contains and enshrines the principles and concept of equal pay for equal work in the Directive

1
Available At: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/women-workers-in-the-british-industrial-revolution/, Last Accessed On:
03/04/2018.
2
AvailableAt:http://www.striking-women.org/module/women-and-work/world-war-i-1914
1918#Women,%20Wages%20and%20Rights, Last Accessed On: 03/04/2018.

Page 4 of 16
Principles of State Policy.3 The Article in clause (d) states that - The State shall, direct its policy
towards securing equal pay for equal work for both men and women. The Supreme Court in a
case4 held that, “It is true that the Principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ is not expressly declared
by our Constitution to be a fundamental right. But it certainly is a constitutional goal.” The Article
14 states that the state shall not deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of
the laws. Article 16 provides for equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to
employment or appointment to any office under the state. The articles and the equality clauses of
the constitution have huge significance towards matters pertaining to the equality of economic
remuneration to the workmen. The principle of “Equal Pay for Equal Work” for person involved
in identical work for work of equal value is part of the Directive Principles framework of the
Indian Constitution and India as a founding member of ILO has adopted and ratified a convention
on this subject and hence has a reciprocal duty to recognize and enforce the principle of equality
in remunerations. The parliament based on such ratification introduced Equal Remuneration Act,
1976 which aims to provide uniformity and equality in payment of remuneration to the men and
women provided that they are employed in work of similar nature. This act also provides for
prevention of discrimination against women employee.
The constitution provides for securing equality of status and opportunity and prohibition on
discrimination. It further provides for termination of all sorts of inequalities.

The International Labour Organisation has been working for the betterment of labour standards
and conditions throughout the world. It has drafted scores of conventions and recommendations,
collectively designated as International Labour Code, covering a variety of subjects, such as
relating to employment, unemployment, conditions of employment, employment of women,
vocational training, industrial health and safety, social security, industrial relations, freedom of
association and trade union rights.
The General Conference of the International Labour Organisation, having been convened at
Geneva by the Governing Body of the International Labour Office, and having met in its Thirty-
fourth Session on 6 June 1951, and having decided upon the adoption of certain proposals with
regard to the principle of equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal
value, which is the seventh item on the agenda of the session, and having determined that these
proposals shall take the form of an international Convention, adopts the twenty-ninth day of June
of the year one thousand nine hundred and fifty-one, the following Convention, which may be
cited as the Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951.5

3
Article 39, The Constitution Of India, 1950.
4
Randhir Singh Vs. Union Of India - AIR 1982 SC 879.
5
Malcolm N. Shaw, ‘International Law’, Ed. IV, 2002
Page 5 of 16
 Chapter 2

Equal Pay for Equal Work

Conceptual Framework
Equal pay for equal work is a dynamic concept of social orders, where men and women have no
discrimination regarding to their working conditions. This idea of fairness and socio-economic
justice has been standard in our Constitution and in different laws.
The Constitutional acknowledgement and protection of equality is the foundation of all the women
welfare enactments. This moral idea of equality has been stated in Chapter-III of the Indian
Constitution. The economic equality has been gotten to all by the principle of equal pay for equal
work. The main consideration of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
Act, is to end discrimination based on color, race, sex, age religion, or national origin in hiring,
promoting, compensation, testing, training, apprenticeship and all the conditions of employment
and to promote voluntary action programs by the employers.

Nature and Scope of the concept of Equal Pay

Article 14 of the Constitution does not explicitly provide for the doctrine of equal pay for equal
work, rather it describes it as an abstract doctrine. In case any distinction is made regarding to pay
scales and such distinction is unreasonable or if unequal pay depends on no classification, then
article 14 will at once be attracted and such classification should be set at naught and equal pay be
directed to be given for equal work6. The Constitution of India proclaims7 equal pay for equal
work for men and as well as for women as a perfect to be converted into practice by the state.

Remuneration8 means "the basic wages 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 employment, express or implied, were fulfilled."
In India, the principle of equal pay is recognized as equal remuneration for "the work that is of
similar nature or same work."

Section 4 of the Act9 defines the provision for equal remuneration as follows: “No employer shall
pay to any worker, employed by him in an establishment or employment, remuneration, whether
payable in cash or in kind, at rates less favorable than those at which remuneration is paid by him

6
Supreme Court Employees Association vs. Union of India, 1984-11-L.L.J. 506
7
The Constitution of India, Article 39(d) which provides that the state shall direct its policy towards securing that
there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women.
8
Section 2(g) of Equal Remuneration Act, 1976
9
Equal Remuneration Act, 1976

Page 6 of 16
to the workers of the opposite sex in such establishment or employment for performing the same
work or work of a similar nature”.
There is no compulsion for employers to classify occupations as they want, thus rendering it
difficult to compare essentially similar jobs. In this way, regardless of whether the work is being
done by a man and a woman are of a similar nature, job differentiation can be made artificially.
For instance, a cashier is paid higher than the accountant, regardless of whether their job
description is similar in both the cases. The cashier is paid higher than the accountant because he
handles money, and his duty is more complex and is classified.
The principle of equality is pertinent to an establishment. The law grants wage differences to exist
across establishments. The wage differentials can be high across establishments as a result of
differences in efficiency, and the ability to pay may vary broadly.

A Socio-Legal Imperative

In India the Socio-economic structure is of such nature that where many people live prosperously
while majority of them lead a life below poverty line. The preamble of the Indian Constitution sets
out the primary objectives, which the framers of the constitution intended to achieve10. It attempts
to secure to everyone of its nationals including women equity, social, economic and political,
freedom of thought and expression, belief, faith and worship, uniformity of status, & opportunity,
and promote among the people of India fraternity guaranteeing dignity of individual for all of its
citizens including women.
Among the fundamental rights, Article 14 guarantees "equality before law and equal protection of
laws within the territory of India". The idea of equality does not mean absolute equality among
individuals. Rather, it is an idea inferring absence of any special benefit by reason of birth, creed
or the like for any individual, and also includes the equal subject to all people and classes to the
customary tradition that must be adhered to11.
The general statements stated in the preamble have enhanced and elaborated in the Constitution 12.
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.”13
Article 39 of the Constitution relating to the directive principles is more specific and
comprehensive in nature. This article specifically requires the state to strive for securing equal pay
for equal work of both men and women.14

10
Dr. Zaheeruddin: "Equal Remuneration to Men and Women", Awards Digest, Vol. XXXII-11-12, Nov-Dec., 2006,
p. 272
11
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution
12
Part IV, these deals with directive principle of state policy
13
Art. 38, Constitution of India
14
Article 39(d) of The Constitution of India, 1950

Page 7 of 16
Therefore, we can say that "equal pay for equal work" is one of the objective set out by the
constitution to be acknowledged by the labour and by the other various enactments in India. One
of the major weaknesses to the practical achievement of this aim is widespread poverty,
unemployment, and lack of education.

Equal pay for Equal work under the Constitution of India

The idea of equal pay for equal work was incorporated under the Directive Principles of State
Policy by the framers of the Constitution in order to to follow the standards of Equality and make
India a welfare State. However, the application of the idea of equal pay was limited to some extent
discrimination on basis of gender and sex as under the principle laid down under Article 39(d) of
the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the framers of the Constitution incorporated the provision
to remove discrimination made against women or men with regard to the terms of payment.
In strict sense, in this provision, it is nowhere mentioned that the concept of equal pay is to be
taken even in terms of employment as of between man and man or woman and woman i.e. it
doesn’t allow a right that man must be paid equally among themselves and woman among
themselves if they perform the similar kind of work. Subsequently, said provision likewise does
not express any distinction between the limits of these men and women and that must be
developed by the Courts. Hence, while framers of the Constitution incorporated the provision,
they just kept in consideration that there ought not be any separation as far as pay on grounds of
sex or sexual orientation of the individual. It must be expressed here that however it is an essential
task of the employer not to discriminate on the basis of sex or gender, the Constitution is silent
about the classification that the employer can make such as on the basis of qualification and level
of expertise of the employee i.e. if the workers are engaged in the same task, they must be treated
equally without making any discrimination thereof.

Equal Remuneration Act, 1976

The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 was passed in order to incorporate and to give effect to the
Constitutional Directive of equal pay for equal work.
The ordinance was brought into effect to provide for payment of equal remuneration to both man
and woman workers for the similar work and to stop the discrimination between man and woman
based on ground of sex.
Different provisions for the payment of remuneration at equal rates are given in Chapter II of the
Act and every provision of the act point to similar ends and ultimately direct the employers not to
discriminate while recruiting the individuals or while payment or even while considering
employees for promotion.

Page 8 of 16
The Act also provides for maintenance of registers in the organizations, creation of posts of
Inspectors and other related workplaces to keep an eye on such prejudiced activities, which are
likely to impact the provisions of the Act.
But, the Act does not lay any provision with reference to whether the qualifications of the
employees are to be considered while considering its pay packages or not. The main thing at
which the Act is focused upon is that the employer must not discriminate on the basis of the
gender of the worker if both man and woman are engaged in same kind of work.

Page 9 of 16
 Chapter 3

Judicial Trends

15
1. Mewa Ram v. A.I.I. Medical Science
Supreme Court in this case has held that the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' is not an
abstract doctrine. Equality must be among equals, un equals 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.

16
2. Randhir Singh v. Union of India
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 co-employees 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 stated 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 extended the purview of the doctrine under Right of Equality and stated that Article 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 Article 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.

15
AIR 1989 SC 1256
16
AIR 1982 SC 879.
Page 10 of 16
 17
3. U.P. Rajya Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Workmen
In this case some bank employees were promoted some time earlier while other set of employees
were promoted later but both the senior and junior groups of the promotees were doing same type
of work. However, higher wages were given to one group (seniors) of promotees from a particular
back date. The Court held that the promotees of other group could not be denied that benefit. The
Court also held that “the classification of persons performing the same work into senior and junior
groups with different pay will be a violate of the principle of equal pay for equal work.”

18
4. Surinder Singh v. Engineer in Chief, C.P.W.D.
This case was brought before the apex Court by way of Writ Petition. The prime contention of the
petitioners was that they were employed by the Central Public Works Department (C.P.W.D.) on
Daily Wage basis and their wages were less than those who were employed by the Department on
permanent basis but did the same kind of work. In reply, the respondents stated that the doctrine of
Equality of pay was an abstract concept and could not be applied. However, the Court held that “it
could not be said that the doctrine of Equal pay for equal work was a mere abstract doctrine and
that it was not capable of being enforced in a court of law. On the point of terms of service i.e.
temporary and permanent, the Court said that this doctrine was required to be applied to persons
employed on daily wages and they were entitled to the same wages as the permanent employees”.
The Court specially referring to the government stated that the Central and the State Governments
in all public-sector undertakings were expected to function like model and enlightened employers
and thus it casted an additional duty on the state undertakings to initiate and enhance the
applicability of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work as it represented the entire industrial
framework of the country.

19
5. Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers Union v. Union of India
A petition was filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution by an organization working under Ministry
of Home Affairs as the petitioner’s remuneration/ pay scale were not in parity to remuneration of
the other employees performing similar work under the same government. The Supreme Court
held that in the service jurisprudence, the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work has assumed the
status of a fundamental right considering the constitutional mandate of equality and was
applicable in all fields of employment. The Court held that there was no discrimination being
followed in the organisation and dismissed the petition.

17
AIR 1990 SC 495
18
AIR 1986 SC 584
19
1991 SCR (1) 15

Page 11 of 16
 20
6. Harbans Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh
The petitioners in this case were daily wage workers employed at Handicraft Corporation. The
remuneration paid to them was less than the remuneration payable to the regular employees of the
corporation. The petitioners, for the enforcement of the principle of “Equal Pay For Equal Work”
went up to Supreme Court contending that non application of the principle violates their
fundamental right to equality. The petitioners demanded equal pay equated in terms of
remuneration payable to regular employees of that establishment. Moreover, the petitioners
contended that they should receive pay/remuneration equal to the pay scale of the permanent
employees in the other industrial establishment under the same state government. The Corporation
on the other hand contended that there were no regular employees in petitioner’s class of
employees in the organization’s establishment.
The Court in this stated that claims for equal remuneration based on alleged unreasonable and
irrational discrimination shall subsist only when such a claim is made within the purview of the
same industrial establishment owned and controlled by the same management. Comparison with
other establishments owned by the same owner but in different geographical locations is not
tenable and admissible. The court further commented that the application of the principle depends
upon the nature of the work done taking into consideration the qualitative attributes and
differences of the work in question. Such qualitative differences like differences in functions and
responsibilities are material differences and may have different degrees, values and importance at
the time of fixation of remuneration and other conditions of service. The differentiation displaying
the real and rational nexus between such differences and object of differentiation will not be
termed as discrimination. The Court also stated that equal pay for unequal is also violation of
rights enshrined in the Article 14 of the constitution. The Court held that while deciding the
equivalence of the work, considerations have to be made to dimensions related to the work like the
accuracy of the worker, the dexterity entailed for work etc and such has to be assessed by an
expert. The court in this case accepted the constraints on its power for determining and assessing
the overall skill needed of the employees for the work.

21
7. Supreme Court Employee’s Welfare Association V. Union Of India
The suit was initiated by the ministerial staff of the Registry of the Supreme Court. They claimed
for an increase in their remuneration after the pay of respective staff of the High Court of Delhi
were increased citing the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. The Supreme Court in this case
stated the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' does not come within the ambit of Art. 14 as a
dynamic principle, yet in event of any classification made pertaining to the remuneration is
unreasonable or irrational, at that point of time Article 14 will be attracted and such classification
or arrangement will put aside and equivalent pay will be directed and coordinated to be given for
20
1989 SCC (4) 459
21
AIR 1990 SC 334
Page 12 of 16
equal work. The Supreme Court clarified that where the classification is proper, legitimate and
reasonable, Article 14 cannot be used to apply the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work'. The
Supreme Court in this case limited its jurisdiction and power of determination only to consider
fixation of remuneration/ pay as discriminatory or arbitrary.

8. Karnataka State Private College Stop-Gap Lecturers Association, v. State of

22
Karnataka
In this case The State government of Karnataka passed a notification stating that the ad hoc
teachers will be paid a remuneration in form of fixed salary which will be ten rupees less than the
remuneration payable to a regular teacher but did not give any reason or basis for this
classification and subsequent discrimination. The Supreme Court held that the notification was in
violation and abrogation of Article 39(d) as paying less remuneration to the temporary employees
than the remuneration payable to regular employee was violative of the principle of equal pay for
equal work and any such notification facilitating such unreasonable classification and
discrimination are liable to be declared as void.

9. Jaipal v. State of Haryana23

In this case the petitioner was employed under a scheme of Haryana Government as District Adult
Education Officers and there was a similar scheme with similar type of work but with a higher pay
scale, under the same government. The petitioner contended that they performed functions and had
duties of identical nature as performed by other teachers but were denied the same higher scale of
remuneration. The Supreme Court in this case conceived that Article 39 (d) appointed the State to
direct and coordinate its policy and approach towards securing “Equal Pay For Equal Work” for both
men and women in order to avoid any form of discrimination amongst the general population
performing similar/identical or comparative work in matters pertaining to remuneration. The Court
stated the doctrine of equal work equal pay does not require complete identity in all respects and to
disregard the principle based on premise of the employment being temporary or permanent is
unreasonable. The court further held that the temporary employee performing identical functions and
duties as permanent employee is entitled to identical remuneration and that the distinction in mode of
selection will not affect the application of the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work."

22
AIR 1992 SC 677
23
AIR 1988 SC 1504

Page 13 of 16
 24
10. State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh
The Supreme Court in this landmark judgment on the principle of equal pay for equal work, has
held that temporary employees would be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay scale
(at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), extended to regular employees, holding the same
post. The Court held that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ would be applicable to all the
temporary employees, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages, at par with the minimum of
the pay scale of regularly engaged Government employees, holding the same post.
Court has held that where duties, responsibilities and functions were shown to be similar, the
principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ would be applicable, even to temporary employees

24 Civil Appeal No. 10356 of 2016

Page 14 of 16
 Conclusion

Conclusions – By going through the literature and recent trends on the subject following
Conclusions that can be drawn -
1. The Principle of “Equal Pay for Equal Work” was brought in fixed and concrete shape by
provisions especially Article 39 of The Constitution of India. The concept had no legal
backing before the enactment of the Constitution of India in 1950.
2. The foundation of the principle is in the state’s obligation to secure order in the society and
to eradicate social, political and economic injustices in all forms.
3. The principle and concept of equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right but is
established as a directive principle of state policy which are commandments that the state
cannot ignore but in reality, the state does not tend to treat such principles as real legal
obligations.
4. The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 is the first legislative step that the parliament took to
fulfill the international obligations and to give the Directive Principles of The Constitution
a concrete form in regards to equality of remuneration for men and women.
5. Law has its own limitations. The Equal Remuneration Act does provide for equality of
remuneration but does not provide for removing of other economic impediments to women
employment
6. The statute lacks on the point that it does not give concrete guidelines to determination of
“Equal Work”. This hole in the legislative scheme leads to inefficient application of the
law.
Suggestions – Following are the suggestions -

1. That the working of the act should be continuously monitored. Reports on working of the
act and recommendations to enlarge the scope and applicability of the act should be
considered.
2. The equal remuneration act, 1976 should not only focus on eradicating discrimination
based on gender of worker. The legislature should include more subjects to this piece of
legislation.
3. The scope of act can be enlarged by considering not only the claims for equality of
remuneration but equality of opportunity and recruitment should also be considered.
4. There should be strict implementation of The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976.
5. The criteria to determine Equal work should be profoundly mentioned in the Act and the
administrative bodies working to determine the same should not take a narrow approach
towards the same.
6. Workers and women should be encouraged to take part in the management of the
organization.

Page 15 of 16
 Bibliography

Books –

1. V.G. Goswami, Labour and Industrial Law, 10th Ed. Central Law Agency, Allahabad,
2015.
2. S.N Mishra Labour and Industrial Law, 25 Ed. Central Law Publication, Allahabad, 2009.

3. IS.C. Shrivastava, Industrial Relations and Labour Laws, 5th Edn., Vikas Publication
House Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
4. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 7th Edn. Lexis Nexis.

E – Databases –

1. SCC Online
2. Westlaw
3. Jstor
4. Hein Online
5. Lexis Nexis India
6. Manupatra

Websites –

1. http://www.ilo.org
2. http://www.un.org/womenwatch/confer
3. https://labour.gov.in/

Page 16 of 16