Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Tipnis V.K. Trivedi D.K., JJ.
Irene Fenandes .... Petitioner.
Versus
Neo Pharama (Pvt.) Ltd. another .... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 1781 of 1984, decided on 20-1-1997.
Advocates appeared :
N. Mhatre with P.M. Patel, for petitioner.
Kuldeep Singh with Paranjape i/b. S. D. Puri, for respondent No. 1.
Sections 3, 2(g) and 7(4)Petitioner filing claim, claiming payment at the same rate at which her male counterpart was paid- Thus what is of paramount importance is that the applicant must show that the skill effort and responsibility required to carry out the work done by the applicant are the same which are required to be carried out by a member of a opposite sex. Once that is established then the provisions of the said Act oblige all en1ployer to pay same salary or ren1uneration meaning; there by same basic wage or salary and additional emoluments payable either in cash or in kind to the applicant. Requirement of Equal Remuneration Act are satisfied then applicant has to be paid same basic wage or salary the entitlement under the provisions of the Equal Remuneration Act is totally independent of any such settlement petition allowed.
Section 7(4)-Claim under Section 7(1)(b) of Act claiming payment at the same rate on her male counterpart paid-Assistant Commissioner is authority-Direction to company to pay the amount -Challenge by company-Order set aside by authority Deputy Commissioner of Labour-Challenge-By petition-Held-No appreciation of evidence and order is without reason-It is difficult to uphold the reasoning of authority -Order quashed and set aside case remanded for disposal as per land,- The petitioner therefore filed claim under Section 7(1 )(b) of the Equal Remuneration Act. 1976 claiming payment at the same rate at which her male counterpart i.e. Vithal Shetty was paid. The orders of the 1st authority in both the cases do not refer to any oral evidence or other documentary evidence adduced by the parties. It does not show any appreciation of evidence and there is no reasoning supporting the conclusion. Looking to the provisions of the said Act we are of the opinion that in the matter under this Act the authority must give reasons in support of its conclusions and then pass final orders which is totally lacking in the orders passed by the 1st authority in these cases. It difficult to uphold the reasoning of the appellant authority. Thus what is of paramount importance is that the applicant must show that the skill, effort and responsibility required to carry out the work done by the applicant are the same which are required to be carried out by a member of a opposite sex. Once that is established then the provisions of the said Act oblige an employer to pay same salary or remuneration: meaning thereby same basic wage or salary and additional employments payable either in cash or in kind to the applicant. The Appellate Authority was not right in denying the petitioner entitlement under the Equal Remuneration Act. 1975 Order dated 25.6. 1992 passed arc quashed and set aside.
2. In writ petition No. 1630 of 1994 the petitioner was employed with 1st respondent company M/s Neo Pharma Pvt. Ltd. from 16-3-1983. She was appointed to the post of Junior Executive in the accounts department. The petitioner was paid consolidated salary of Rs. 700/- per month. Ultimately by March 1991 her consolidated salary was raised to Rs. 1,475/- p.m. It is the case of the petitioner that the work done by her and that done by one Mr. Vithal Shetty working with the 1st respondent company is similar in nature. However, for similar work when Shri Vithal Shetty was being paid Rs. 1,357/- she was being paid only Rs. 700/- p.m. The petitioner therefore filed claim under section 7(1)(b) of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 claiming payment at the same rate at which her male counterpart i.e. Vithal Shetty was paid.
3. The Assistant Commissioner who has been appointed as an authority under the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 by his judgment and order dated 25-6-1992 allowed the application holding that respondent No. 1 company has violated the provisions of section 4 of Equal Remuneration Act and ordering the company to pay to the petitioner an amount shown in the application amended from time to time and also to pay the benefits arising out of payment like provident fund, bonus, gratuity, etc. He quantified the amount at Rs. 1,75,270.40 p.
4. Being aggrieved by the decision of the respondent No. 1 company preferred an appeal being appeal E.R.A. No. 4 of 1992 to the appellate authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Labour who by his judgment and order dated 2-4-1993 was pleased to allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the 1st authority.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order the petitioner has filed this petition.
6. In writ petition No. 1781 of 1994 the petitioner was employed by the 1st respondent company M/s Neo Pharma Pvt. Ltd. as a secretary to the purchase manager from 1st July, 1981. The appointment order mentioned that she would be in Junior Executive cadre. However, the petitioner was paid consolidated wages at Rs. 550/- p.m. From time to time ultimately petitioner's salary came to be raised to Rs. 1,033/- p.m. It is the contention of the petitioner that though designated as secretary to the purchase manager or as Junior Executive, she was required to do the work of stenographer. The petitioner was taking dictation from several officers and directors of the company. She was required to take dictation, transcribe the same as also filing papers typed by her in the respective files. The petitioner contended that one Mr. N. S. Natarajan working with the 1st respondent company was doing the same work of stenographer. However Mr. Natarajan was paid Rs. 1,250/- p.m. The petitioner therefore filed claim application under section 7(1)(b) of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 claiming parity in wages with her male counterpart i.e. Shri N. S. Natarajan.
7. The authority under the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 by its judgment and order dated 25-6-1992 allowed the application and directed the management i.e. respondent No. 1 to pay to the petitioner amount shown in the application as amended from time to time quantifying the amount at Rs. 1,88,816.15 p.
8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order the respondent No. 1 - Management of M/s Neo Pharma Pvt. Ltd. preferred an appeal to the appellate authority being appeal No. ERA-2 of 1992. The learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour, appellate authority by his judgment and order dated 4-8-1993 was pleased to allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the 1st authority.
9. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the appellate authority the petitioner has approached this court by way of this petition.
10. We have heard Mrs. Mhatre, the learned counsel for petitioner in both the matters and Shri Ku
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
