Judgment

VENKATARAMIAH, J.:- In this Special Leave Petition filed under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India, which is filed against the decision dated November 24, 1986 of the High Court of Bombay in Appeal No. 1042 of 1986, the question whether the petitioner had violated the provisions of S. 4 of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 (No. 25 of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) arises for consideration.

2. The petitioner is a company carrying on the business of rendering supporting services of water transport, like operation and maintenance of piers, docks, pilotage, light-houses, loading and discharging of vessels etc. referred to as Item No. 12 under the heading Water Transport in the list of establishments and employments to which the Act has been made applicable under sub-sec. (3) of S. 1 of the Act. Respondent No. 1 Audrey DCosta was one of the employees working under the petitioner till June 13, 1977 on which date her services were terminated. During the period of her employment under the petitioner she was working as a Confidential Lady Stenographer. After her services were terminated, she instituted a petition before the Authority appointed under sub-sec. (1) of S. 7 of the Act complaining that during the period of her employment, after the Act came into force, she was being paid remuneration at the rates less favourable than those at which remuneration was being paid by the petitioner to the Stenographers of the male sex in -its establishment for performing the same or similar work. She claimed that she was entitled to recover from the petitioner the amount equivalent to the difference between the remuneration which she was being paid and the remuneration which was being paid to the male Stenographer who had put in the same length of service during the period of operation of the Act. The petitioner opposed the said petition. The petitioner contended inter alia that the business which was being carried on by it was not one of those businesses notified under sub-sec. (3) of S. 1 of the Act; that there was no difference in the scales or grades of pay between lady Stenographers and other male Stenographers at the time when the case was pending before the Authority referred to above; that the respondent No. 1 and other lady Stenographers who had been doing the duty as Confidential Stenographers attached to the senior Executives of the petitioner company were not doing the same or similar work which the male Stenographers were discharging; and that there. was no discrimination in salary on account of sex. The petitioner contended that S. 4 of the Act had not been violated by it.

3. After hearing both the parties, the Authority which heard the complaint of the respondent No. 1, found that the male Stenographers and the lady Stenographers were doing the same kind of work, but it, however, rejected the complaint holding that in view of a settlement which had been arrived at in 1975 between the employees Union and the management, the respondent No. 1 was not entitled to any relief. The Authority held that the petitioner had not committed the breach of S. 4 the Act as no discrimination on the ground of sex had been made. It accordingly rejected the complaint of the respondent No. 1 by its order dated March 30, 1982. Aggrieved by the order of the Authority appointed under sub-sec. (1) of S. 7 of the Act, the respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (ENF) Bombay, who was the Appellate Authority appointed under sub-sec. (6) of S. 7 of the Act. The Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that there was clear discrimination between the male Stenographers and the female Stenographers working in the establishment of the petitioner and the petitioner had committed the breach of the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed by the Appellate Authority on May 31, 1982. It directed the petitioner to make payment of Rs. 7,196.67 paise which was the difference between the basic salary