The principle of “Equal Pay for Equal Work” is a cornerstone of social justice and economic fairness. It ensures that employees performing similar duties, under similar working conditions, should receive equal remuneration, regardless of gender, designation, or employment status. In India, the concept derives its force from Articles 14, 15, and 39(d) of the Constitution, read together, which guarantee equality before law, prohibit discrimination, and direct the State to secure equal pay for equal work for both men and women.
Over the years, the judiciary has played a pivotal role in shaping and reinforcing this principle, even in the absence of comprehensive legislation.
Constitutional and Legal Basis
-
Article 14: Equality before the law.
-
Article 15: Prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sex.
-
Article 39(d) (Directive Principle): The State shall ensure equal pay for equal work for both men and women.
-
Equal Remuneration Act, 1976: Statutory mechanism providing for payment of equal remuneration to men and women workers and prevention of gender-based discrimination.
While Directive Principles are not enforceable in courts, the judiciary has interpreted them in harmony with Fundamental Rights, making “equal pay for equal work” a justiciable right.
Judicial Approach
1. Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982)
This landmark case recognized “equal pay for equal work” as a constitutional right under Articles 14 and 16. The Supreme Court held that even though Article 39(d) is a Directive Principle, it is enforceable through constitutional guarantees of equality.
2. D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983)
Though primarily about pension rights, the Court reiterated the broader principle of equality, emphasizing that any classification which results in differential treatment among equals is unconstitutional.
3. Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. v. Audrey D’Costa (1987)
The Court applied the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, and held that women stenographers were entitled to the same salary as their male counterparts, reinforcing gender equality in pay.
4. State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2016)
The Supreme Court held that temporary, contractual, and casual workers are also entitled to the principle of equal pay for equal work when they perform duties similar to those of regular employees. This case significantly expanded the scope of protection.
5. Recent Trends
Indian courts have moved towards a functional approach, comparing the nature of work, responsibilities, and duties rather than designations alone. Courts have also cautioned that equal pay does not mean identical pay in every situation, as factors like experience, qualifications, and performance may justify differential pay.
Challenges in Implementation
-
Contractualization and informal employment often dilute enforcement.
-
Gender pay gap persists despite legal safeguards.
-
Burden of proof frequently lies on employees, making litigation difficult.
-
Evolving job roles in modern workplaces pose complexities in determining “similar work.”
Conclusion
The Indian judiciary has been instrumental in transforming the principle of equal pay for equal work from a non-enforceable directive into a constitutional guarantee. With landmark rulings expanding its scope to cover casual and contractual workers, courts have reinforced the idea of substantive equality. However, the persistence of wage disparities highlights the need for stronger legislative measures, effective enforcement mechanisms, and proactive employer policies to ensure true realization of this principle in India’s diverse workforce.