Author: Sakshi Rana
ABSTRACT
The principle of “Equal Pay for Equal Work” has surfaced as a significant hand of profitable justice and social equity in India. Though not explicitly enumerated as a abecedarian right, this doctrine has been judicially honored as a indigenous accreditation under Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Indian Constitution. This composition delves into the indigenous base, judicial interpretations, legislative support, and ongoing challenges associated with enforcing the doctrine.
INTRODUCTION
The conception of equivalency lies at the heart of the Indian Constitution. Among its numerous confines, “Equal Pay for Equal Work” forms a vital element in icing both social and profitable justice. The top authorizations that individualities performing the same or analogous work should admit equal remuneration, irrespective of their gender, estate, or employment status. Though the Indian Constitution doesn’t explicitly mention this expression, judicial activism and legislative intent have embedded the doctrine of equal pay for equal work into Indian legal and administrative framework.
This composition discusses the indigenous and legal framework surrounding “Equal Pay for Equal Work” in India, analyzes its judicial acceptance, and examines the loopholes and issues in its enforcement in practice.
I. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK
The doctrine of “Equal Pay for Equal Work” is embedded in the abecedarian conception of fairness and non-discrimination. It reflects a universal labor law principle that ensures indifferent treatment in the plant. Internationally, it’s elevated in several instruments, including:
• Article 23(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
• Convention No. 100 of ILO, 1951
• Article 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), 1966
In India, the principle has evolved through judicial pronouncements rather than being expressly stated in the Constitution. It embedded laterally in the vein of Articles 14,15 and 16.
II. INDIGENOUS AND LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
1. Article 14 – Right to Equality
Article 14 guarantees equivalency before the law and equal protection of the laws to all persons. Demarcation in pay for analogous work violates this guarantee. The doctrine of equal pay logically flows from the equivalency clause and is frequently invoked in action concerning pay envelope equality.
2. Article 15 – Prohibition of Demarcation
Article 15 prohibits demarcation on the grounds of religion, race, estate, coitus, or place of birth. Unstable pay grounded on any of these grounds, particularly gender, directly violates this composition.
3. Article 16 – Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment
This composition ensures that public employment is grounded on merit and doesn’t tolerate arbitrary distinctions in pay scales between workers performing equal duties.
4. Directive Principles of State Policy
Article 39(d): Specifically directs the State to insure that men and women are paid inversely for equal work. Though not enforceable in a court of law, this directive principle provides vital guidance for interpreting abecedarian rights.
Article 38: Requires the State to endeavor to advance the weal of the people by obtaining a social order within which justice — social, profitable, and political — shall guide all institutions of public life.
Article 43: Encourages securing a living pay envelope and decent standard of life for workers.
5. The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976
• Legislated to give effect to Article 39(d), this Act provides for:
• Same pay for men and women laborers for the same work or work of similar nature.
• Prevention of demarcation in reclamation and service conditions.
• Although repealed in 2020 and integrated under the law on stipend, 2019, the principle remains applicable and list.
III. JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION AND DEVELOPMENT
The Indian courts have played an important role in interpreting and applying the doctrine of equal pay:
1. Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982) AIR 879
This is a watershed judgment where the Supreme Court categorically held that “Equal Pay for Equal Work” is not a mere demagogic slogan but a constitutional goal. It was declared enforceable through Articles 14 and 16. The court noted: “Even if it is not a constitutional right, it is undoubtedly a constitutional objective.”
2. D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983) AIR 130
The Court held that different treatment in pensionary benefits to government servants based on the date of retirement violates Article 14. Though not directly about pay, the principle of equality in service benefits was reiterated.
3. Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. v. Audrey D’Costa (1987) 2 SCC 469
This case was about gender discrimination in wages of male and female stenographers. The Supreme Court ruled that such a disparity was unconstitutional and violated both Article 14 and the Equal Remuneration Act.
4. State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2016) 14 SCC 267
In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court held that temporary or contractual workers performing similar duties as permanent employees are entitled to equal pay. It extended the doctrine to modern employment trends and non-permanent appointments.
The Court observed: “The doctrine of equal pay for equal work would apply to those working on daily wage basis or on contractual basis.”
5. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pramod Bhartiya (1993) Supp (1) SCC 607
The Court reinforced that classification of employees must be reasonable, and mere nomenclature or mode of recruitment cannot justify unequal pay for identical work.
IV. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS AND CHALLENGES
Despite judicial and legislative recognition, implementation remains a major challenge due to several factors:
1. Gender Disparity: Women continue to be paid less than men across sectors, especially in informal and agricultural labor. According to the Global Gender Gap Report 2024, India ranked low in terms of wage equality for similar work.
2. Contractual vs. Permanent Employment: Government and private employers often exploit contractual arrangements to avoid paying wages equivalent to permanent staff.
3. Judicial Delay: Wage parity litigation often takes years, discouraging employees from pursuing legal remedies.
4. Loopholes in Legislation: Even after consolidation under the Code on Wages, grey areas in the definition of “similar work” persist to hinder enforcement.
V. ROLE OF THE CODE ON WAGES, 2019
The Code on Wages, 2019, that brings together four labor legislations such as the Equal Remuneration Act maintains the fundamental principle of wage equality. However, critics argue that:
The Code does not provide strong enforcement mechanisms.
It lacks a clear complaint redressal structure.
There are concerns about weakening labor inspection mechanisms under the new framework.
Nonetheless, the Code represents a step toward simplification and modernization of labor laws and reflects continued legislative support for the principle.
VII. WAY FORWARD
To ensure the robust implementation of “Equal Pay for Equal Work,” the following measures are recommended:
1. Strengthening Legal Enforcement: Fast-track mechanisms and labor tribunals dedicated to wage parity cases should be established.
2. Awareness Campaigns: Government and NGOs must conduct widespread campaigns in regional languages to educate workers.
3. Gender-Neutral Job Evaluation: Introduce standardized systems to evaluate “work of similar nature” across genders and job categories.
4. Audit and Transparency: Mandate periodic gender and wage audits in public and private sectors.
5. Institutional Mechanisms: Set up Equal Pay Commissions or Ombudsman bodies with enforcement powers.
6. Incentivizing Compliance: Provide tax incentives and recognition to companies implementing wage parity norms
CONCLUSION
The principle of “Equal Pay for Equal Work” is a cornerstone of economic and gender justice. While the Constitution of India, through its guarantees and directive principles, upholds this ideal, it is the judiciary that has transformed it into a living, enforceable right. Despite this progress, much remains to be done at the policy, institutional, and societal levels to ensure real equality in remuneration.
A just society cannot tolerate a structure where people performing the same labor are unequally compensated merely due to gender, employment status, or other discriminatory grounds. Closing this gap is not only a legal requirement but a moral and constitutional requirement.
References
Constitution of India – Articles 14, 15, 16, 38, 39(d), 43
2. Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 (now subsumed under Code on Wages, 2019)
3. Code on Wages, 2019
4. Randhir Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 879
5. State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2016) 14 SCC 267
6. Global Gender Gap Report, 2024 – World Economic Forum
7. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
FAQs
Q: Is “Equal Pay for Equal Work” a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution?
A: No, it is not expressly mentioned as a fundamental right. However, the Supreme Court has held that it is a constitutional goal derived from Articles 14, 15, and 16.
Q: What is the significance of Article 39(d) in this context?
A: Article 39(d), part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, specifically directs the State to ensure equal pay for men and women for equal work.
Q: Which landmark case established the principle equal pay for equal work in Indian law?
A: The landmark case is Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982), where the Supreme Court held that the principle is enforceable under Articles 14 and 16.
Q: Does this principle apply to contractual or temporary workers?
A: Yes. In State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2016), the Supreme Court ruled that temporary or contractual employees performing similar work as permanent employees are entitled to equal pay.
Q: What are the main challenges in implementing equal pay in India?
A: Challenges include wage gaps based on gender and caste, dominance of informal sectors, lack of worker awareness, and weak enforcement mechanisms.
Q: How does India compare with other countries on this issue?
A: India aligns with ILO Convention No. 100, but enforcement remains weaker compared to the UK, USA, and EU nations.
Q: Is the private sector also bound by the principle of equal pay for equal work?
A: Yes. Both public and private sector employers are subject to constitutional mandates and labor laws prohibiting wage discrimination.
