Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Under the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, it is possible for an employer to hire two male employees for the same position at different wages, as the Act (Section 4) only prohibits unequal pay between men and women for same/similar work, with no bar on intra-gender disparities. ["VIDYA SHARMA VS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH - 1988 0 Supreme(HP) 41"] ["Irene Fenandes VS Neo Pharama (Pvt. ) Ltd. & another - 1997 0 Supreme(Bom) 34"] ["Janta Shikshan Prasarak Mandal VS The Industrial Court - 2010 0 Supreme(Bom) 23"] ["BIMLA RANI VS APPELLATE AUTHORITY EQUAL - Delhi"] General equal pay for equal work (Article 14/39(d)) may restrict this if work is identical, but query limits to the Act. ["Mahanthi Vijaya Lakshmi VS Municipal Administration And Urban Development - Andhra Pradesh"]
In today's competitive job market, employers often negotiate wages based on experience, skills, or market conditions. But what if two male employees occupy the exact same position? Does India's Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 (ERA) mandate identical pay? This question arises frequently in HR discussions: Under the Equal Remuneration Act, is it possible for the employer to hire two male employees on the same position/post but on different wages?
The short answer is yes, generally, as the Act focuses exclusively on gender-based discrimination. This post dives deep into the legal nuances, Supreme Court precedents, and broader context from related cases to help employers navigate wage structures compliantly.
The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 aims to ensure pay equity between men and women. Section 4(1) is pivotal: no employer shall pay to any worker employed by him the remuneration... at rates less favourable than those at which remuneration is paid by him to the workers of the opposite sex for performing the same work or work of a similar nature. Mackinnon Mackenzie And Company LTD. . VS Audrey Dcosta - 1987 0 Supreme(SC) 367VIDYA SHARMA VS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH - 1988 0 Supreme(HP) 41Air India Cabin Crew Association WITH Air India Officers Association VS Yeshawinee Merchant and Air India LTD. - 2003 5 Supreme 8
This provision targets opposite-sex comparators only. Pay differences between two male (or two female) employees on the same post fall outside its scope. As the Supreme Court clarified in Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. v. Audrey D'Costa: Discrimination arises only where men and women doing the same or similar kind of work are paid differently. VIDYA SHARMA VS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH - 1988 0 Supreme(HP) 41
In cases like lady stenographers paid less than males despite a common scale, courts struck down sex-based fitment under Section 4(1). Mackinnon Mackenzie And Company LTD. . VS Audrey Dcosta - 1987 0 Supreme(SC) 367UNION OF INDIA VS AMITA SOOD - 2002 0 Supreme(Del) 703 However, no such scrutiny applies to intra-sex disparities.
Section 3 grants the Act overriding effect over inconsistent settlements or contracts—but only for sex-based differences. For instance, a settlement perpetuating lower fitment for women was invalidated: The discrimination thus brought about by the terms of settlement only on account of the sex of the employees cannot be allowed to persist in view of section 4 of the Act. Mackinnon Mackenzie And Company LTD. . VS Audrey Dcosta - 1987 0 Supreme(SC) 367UNION OF INDIA VS AMITA SOOD - 2002 0 Supreme(Del) 703
For two males, contractual wage differences remain valid, as no sex discrimination triggers the override. Janta Shikshan Prasarak Mandal VS The Industrial Court - 2010 0 Supreme(Bom) 23
Section 2(h) defines this as work where the skill, effort and responsibility required are the same... and the difference, if any, between the skill, effort and responsibility required of a man and those required of a woman are not of practical importance. Janta Shikshan Prasarak Mandal VS The Industrial Court - 2010 0 Supreme(Bom) 23Irene Fenandes VS Neo Pharama (Pvt. ) Ltd. & another - 1997 0 Supreme(Bom) 34
This male-female binary excludes same-post male comparisons. Sub-section 4(3) and its proviso, addressing pre-Act sex-based rates, are similarly inapplicable. Mackinnon Mackenzie And Company LTD. . VS Audrey Dcosta - 1987 0 Supreme(SC) 367
While the ERA is gender-specific, India's Constitution (Articles 14, 16) embodies 'equal pay for equal work.' Related judgments highlight limits on intra-sex or other disparities:
In one case, lady sweepers (half-day) got proportional wages to male full-timers under ERA due to sex discrimination. Leelaben Parmar VS Physical Research Laboratory - 2010 Supreme(Guj) 247 Contrastingly, contract workers failed parity claims without proving identical duties to direct employees. Mumbai Electric Employees Union VS Additional Labour Commissioner, Mumbai - 2023 Supreme(Bom) 260
These underscore that while ERA doesn't regulate same-sex pay, irrational intra-sex differences might invite constitutional challenges—but that's beyond the Act's purview.
No ERA exceptions allow sex-based pay gaps, and financial constraints don't excuse opposite-sex non-compliance. Mackinnon Mackenzie And Company LTD. . VS Audrey Dcosta - 1987 0 Supreme(SC) 367VIDYA SHARMA VS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH - 1988 0 Supreme(HP) 41 For same-sex males:
Ensure strict parity with female comparators to avoid Section 4 violations. In packer roles, women secured equal pay to opposite-sex counterparts post-regularization. D. Roselin Joyce VS Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. - 2016 Supreme(Mad) 4163
This post provides general insights based on statutes and judgments like VIDYA SHARMA VS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH - 1988 0 Supreme(HP) 41, Mackinnon Mackenzie And Company LTD. . VS Audrey Dcosta - 1987 0 Supreme(SC) 367, and others noted. It is not legal advice; consult a qualified lawyer for specific situations.
Stay informed on labour laws to build fair, defensible workplaces.
#EqualRemunerationAct, #LabourLawIndia, #EqualPayAct
She, therefore, instituted a petition before the authority appointed under Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, complaining that she was being paid remuneration at the rates less favourable than those at which wages were being paid to the stenographers of the male sex for performing the same or similar work ... It was found that the Equal Remuneration Ordinance, 1975, which was replaced by the Equal Remuneration #HL_START....
Where there is no comparison between one set of employees of one organisation, and another set of employees of a different organisation, there can be no question of equation of pay scales under the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, even if two organisations have a common employer. ... A comparison between the subject post and the reference post under the principle of “equal pay for equal wo....
It was also held, that the classification of workers (as unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled), doing the same work, into different categories for payment of wages at different rates, was not tenable. It was also held, that such an act of an employer would amount to exploitation. ... Such act besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any act of paying less wages as compared to other similarly situate constitutes an #HL_....
(x) A comparison between the subject post and the reference post, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', cannot be made, where the subject post and the reference post are in different establishments, having a different management. ... (xvii) Where there is no comparison between one set of employees of one organization, and another set of employees of a different organization, there c....
Any act of paying less wages as compared to others similarly situate constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation. 59. ... There can be no doubt, that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" would be applicable to all the temporary employees concerned, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages on a....
The law is also well settled that classification of workers doing the same work into different categories for payment of wages at different rates is not legally tenable and such an act of the employer would amount to exploitation and is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. ... Any act of paying less wages as compared to others similarly situate constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering po....
Where there is no comparison between one set of employees of one organisation, and another set of employees of a different organisation, there can be no question of equation of pay scales under the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, even if two organisations have a common employer. ... It was also held, that the classification of workers (as unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled), doing the same work, into different categories for payment of #HL_....
in a position to turn around and claim different (higher) rates of wages than the ones agreed under the agreement. ... Furthermore, below Mazdoor, there is a post of Junior Mazdoor. Both in view of existence of registered agreement, as well as failure on the part of Petitioners to prove similarity in duties and responsibilities, comparison in the wages earned by two categories of employees becomes pointless. ... Tilak Raj and Others, 2003 (98) FLR 599 in support of hi....
Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation. 56. ... (xvii) Where there is no comparison between one set of employees of one organization, and another set of employees of a different organization, there can be no question of equation of pay-scales, und....
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. ... Section 4 enjoins the employer with a duty to pay equal remuneration to men and women workers for same work or work of similar nature. ... The petitioner therefore filed claim under section 7(1)(b) of the Equal Remuneration#HL_END....
(1) No employee shall pay to any worker, employed by him in an establishment or employment, remuneration, whether payable in cash or in kind, at rates less favourable than those at which remuneration is paid by him to the workers of the opposite sex in such establishment or employment for performing the same work or work of a similar nature." Duty of employer to pay equal remuneration to men and women workers for same work or work of a similar nature :-
The relief claimed in Para-(A) that petitioner nos.1 to 12 be declared as direct employees of respondent no.1-PRL and that they are entitled to be permanently employed by respondent no.1-PRL is rejected. 7. Learned counsel further submitted that there are eight other permanent male sweepers employed by respondent no.1-PRL on full time basis and all of them are placed in regular Grades. The lady employees, though employed for half a day, are entitled for proportional wages to what is being paid to the permanent sweepers under the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work as well as unde....
The learned counsel referring Section 5 of the Act, has submitted that it has been provided by the Central legislature that no discrimination shall be made in matter of recruitment of woman on ground of sex. The learned counsel 1'01' the petitioner submitted that in Section 4 of the Act no. 25 of 1976, a duty has been imposed on the employer to pay equal remuneration to men and women workers for same work or work-of-similar nature.
In this connection, it would be advantageous to see the reasons which prompted the governing body to come to its decision as per Ext.P5. If that is permitted, there will be two different grades for similarly placed employees in the same post, who were appointed to the post together, which would be discriminatory. Once a benefit has been conferred on the employees as a class, the same cannot be taken away to the detriment of individual members of the same class.
Services of electricians working in parent department i.e. Irrigation Department were transferred to the Public Works Department. It has also completely been overlooked by the Accountant General that initially Irrigation was the parent department which was subsequently bifurcated in lrrigation and Public Works Department. If two employees are working on the same post in two different departments of the State, they will have to be given the same scale of pay considering the principle of equal pay for equal work. The Accountant General has ignored the rules provided in the Bi....
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
