Facts in Brief

The Respondent before the Supreme Court was an erstwhile employee of the Appellant company, who during the period of her employment was working as a “confidential lady stenographer.” She complained that during the period of her employment after the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 came into force, she was being paid remuneration at rates less favourable than those at which remuneration was being paid by the company to stenographers of the male sex in its establishment, for performing the same or similar work. She therefore made a claim for recovery of an amount equivalent to the difference between the remuneration she was being paid and the remuneration paid to the male stenographers who had put in the same length of service during the period of the operation of the Act.

Arguments

The company opposed the petition on the grounds that the lady stenographers who had been doing duty as confidential stenographers attached to the senior executives of the company were not doing the same work which the male stenographers were discharging, and that there was no discrimination on account of sex. It was also contended that the difference in salary was due to the settlement that had been reached between the union and the company.

Judgment

The Supreme Court, considering the impact of the Convention Concerning Equal Remuneration for Men and Women Workers for Work of Equal Value (adopted by the General Conference of the International Labour Organization), of which India was one of the parties, and also the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, observed that whether a particular work was the same or similar in nature to another work could be classified on three considerations:

(a) The authority should take a broad view;

(b) In ascertaining whether any differences were of practical importance, the authority should take an equally broad approach, for the very concept of similar work implies differences in detail — these small differences should not defeat a claim of equality on trivial grounds;

(c) One should look at the duties actually performed, and not at those theoretically possible.

Upon these considerations, the Court held that the Confidential Lady Stenographers were doing the same work, or work of a similar nature as defined by Section 2(h) of the Act, as the male stenographers were performing, and therefore her claim was entitled to succeed.

For the Common Man

The Supreme Court, coming down harshly upon the employer, declared in categorical terms that it shall not accept any discrimination between males and females as regards payment of wages, where they were performing the same tasks. The Court declared that in view of the mandate under Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution and the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, the liability to pay irrespective of sex was mandatory on the employer. If an employer violated it, he could be prosecuted for the same.