MADAN B. LOKUR, J.

( 1 ) THE PETITIONERS ARE LADIES EMPLOYED WITH RESPONDENT NO. 2. THEY HAD FILED A CLAIM UNDER SECTION 7 (1) (B) OF THE EQUAL REMUNERATION ACT, 1976 (THE ACT) CLAIMING THE SAME PAY-SCALE AS GRANTED TO MEN PERFORMING THE SAME WORK.

( 2 ) SECTION 7 (1) (B) OF THE ACT READS AS FOLLOWS: -

"7. POWER OF APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT TO APPOINT AUTHORITIES FOR HEARING AND DECIDING CLAIMS AND COMPLAINTS.- (1) THE APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT MAY, BY NOTIFICATION, APPOINT SUCH OFFICERS, NOT BELOW THE RANK OF A LABOUR OFFICER, AS IT THINKS FIT TO BE THE AUTHORITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF HEARING AND DECIDING - (A) xxx XXX XXX (B) claims ARISING OUT OF NON-PAYMENT OF WAGES AT EQUAL RATES TO MEN AND WOMEN WORKERS AND MAY, BY THE SAME OR SUBSEQUENT NOTIFICATION, DEFINE THE LOCAL LIMITS WITHIN WHICH EACH SUCH AUTHORITY SHALL EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION. (2) TO (8) xxx XXX XXX"

( 3 ) ACCORDING TO THE PETITIONERS, THEY WERE WORKING AS PACKERS SINCE SOMETIME IN 1978. BY AN ORDER DATED 8th OCTOBER, 1984, THEY WERE APPOINTED TO A REGULAR PAY-SCALE WITH EFFECT FROM 1st SEPTEMBER, 1984, THE PAY-SCALE BEING RS. 150-240-360. THEIR MALE COUNTERPARTS, WHO WERE DOING THE SAME OR SIMILAR WORK WERE APPOINTED IN THE PAY-SCALE OF RS. 185-305-440. ACCORDING TO THE PETITIONERS, THIS WAS A VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THEY WERE ENTITLED TO THE SAME REMUNERATION AS THEIR MALE COUNTERPARTS.

( 4 ) THE CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT NO. 2 WAS THAT ALL THE LADIES WERE WORKING AS PACKING CLEANERS AND THEIR JOB WAS TO CLEAN PULSES, MASALAS, ETC. WHILE THE MEN FOLK WERE WORKING AS PACKERS AND HAD TO WEIGH THE GOODS AND PACK THEM WITH THE USE OF ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES. SINCE THE NATURE OF WORK WAS DIS-SIMILAR, THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE IN THE PAY-SCALES.

( 5 ) THE AUTHORITY UNDER THE ACT FRAMED THE FOLLOWING ISSUES FOR ITS CONSIDERATION: -

" (I) WHETHER THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PLAINT PROCEEDINGS ARE SUBJUDICE BEFORE THE HON ble SUPREME COURT IN C. W. P. NO. 9161 OF 1982 AND IF SO, TO WHAT EFFECT? (II) WHETHER THE APPLICANTS ARE ENTITLED TO RELIEF SOUGHT FOR AND IF SO, WHAT DIRECTIONS ARE NECESSARY IN THIS REGARD?"

( 6 ) IN SO FAR AS THE FIRST ISSUE IS CONCERNED, IT WAS ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE AND IS NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF ANY DISPUTE BEFORE ME.

( 7 ) WITH REGARD TO THE SECOND ISSUE, THE AUTHORITY RECORDED EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES AND CONCLUDED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONERS WAS JUSTIFIED.

( 8 ) IT WAS NOTED BY THE AUTHORITY THAT PRIOR TO OCTOBER, 1984, THE REMUNERATION BEING GIVEN TO BOTH MEN AND WOMEN WAS THE SAME BECAUSE THEY WERE DOING THE SAME OR SIMILAR WORK. THE DIFFERENCE IN THE MATTER OF PAY CAME UP ONLY AFTER THEIR REGULARISATION IN OCTOBER, 1984, EVEN THOUGH THE WORK REMAINED THE SAME. IN FACT, IT WAS NOTED THAT RESPONDENT NO. 2 WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE NATURE OF WORK PERFORMED BY MEN AND WOMEN WAS DIFFERENT. ON THE CONTRARY, THE CASE OF ONE SUJJAN WAS HIGHLIGHTED. SHE IS A LADY BUT WAS INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF MEN WORKERS AND SO WAS GETTING A HIGHER REMUNERATION; BUT WHEN IT CAME TO BE KNOWN THAT SHE WAS WRONGLY DESIGNATED AS A MALE WORKER, HER REMUNERATION WAS REDUCED.

( 9 ) THE AUTHORITY NOTED THAT THE EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF PACKERS AND PACKING CLEANERS WERE DIFFERENT. NOTWITHSTANDING THIS, THE NATURE OF WORK CONTINUED TO BE THE SAME AS WHAT THEY WERE DOING FROM 1978 ONWARDS AND THAT IT IS ONLY AFTER REGULARISATION THAT RESPONDENT NO. 2 BEGAN TO HAVE TWO DIFFERENT DESIGNATIONS AND TWO DIFFERENT PAY-SCALES.

( 10 ) AFTER PERUSING THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE ON RECORD, THE AUTHORITY HELD THAT THE WORK PERFORMED BY THE PETITIONERS IS THE SAME AS THEIR MALE COUNTERPARTS AND THAT THE PETITIONERS HAD BEEN DISCRIMINATED ONLY ON THE GROUND OF THEIR SEX.

( 11 ) FEELING AGGRIEVED, RESPONDENT NO. 2 FILED AN APPEAL, WHICH WAS HEARD BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE ACT, THAT IS, THE JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 6th MARCH, 1989, THE APPEAL WAS ALLOWED. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY HELD THAT THE AUTHORITY UNDER T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document