This document discusses the concept of equal pay for equal work from the perspective of the Indian Constitution. It outlines how the concept emerged from fundamental rights and was incorporated into acts like the Equal Remuneration Act. Key cases like Randhir Singh v. Union of India and Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wages Association v. State of Karnataka established equal pay as a constitutional goal, finding discrimination in pay unjustifiable unless based on reasonable grounds. The document concludes that while the Equal Remuneration Act prohibits gender-based discrimination, it does not consider other factors like qualifications or define what constitutes equal work, leaving interpretation to the courts. Suggestions include expanding the act beyond gender, explicitly defining equal pay as a

2. EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK
IN THIS PRESENTATION WE HAVE TRIED TO UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF
EQUAL PAY AND WORK FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE AND
UNDERSTANDING THE ROOTS OF THE CONCEPT FROM THE CONSTITUTION,
UNDERSTANDING HOW THE CONCEPT EMERGED FROM THE FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS AND THEREON TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE INCLUSION OF THE
CONCEPT IN VARIOUS ACTS, SUCH AS, EQUAL REMUNERATION ACT,
CONTRACT, LABOUR, FACTORIES ACT ETC.

3. • JUST CONSIDERING AND STATING THAT ALL MEN ARE EQUAL IS NOT ENOUGH BUT A CONCRETE STEP OR
RATHER A SERIES OF STEPS NEED TO BE TAKEN TO BRING THE CONCEPT OF CLASSLESS SOCIETY INTO
EXISTENCE AND THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONCEPT OF EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK IS ONE OF SUCH
STEPS, TAKEN TO WIPE OUT ANY SCOPE OF UNREASONABLE DISCRIMINATION AS WHICH MAY OCCUR OR
MAYBE FOLLOWED IN ANY FORM OF SOCIETY WHEN IT COMES TO PAYMENT OF REMUNERATION. THE
CONCEPT OF EQUALITY OF PAY WAS INCORPORATED UNDER THE DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY
BY THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION SO AS TO FOLLOW THE PRINCIPLES OF EQUALITY AND MAKE
INDIA A WELFARE STATE I.E. A COUNTRY AIMED AT CREATING AN EGALITARIAN SOCIETY.
• ARTICLE 39 WHICH STATES AS FOLLOWS; THE STATE SHALL, IN PARTICULAR, DIRECT ITS POLICY
TOWARDS SECURING THAT THERE IS EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK FOR BOTH MEN AND WOMEN.

4. • HOWEVER, GOING STRICTLY ACCORDING TO THE PROVISION, IT NOWHERE STATES THAT THIS CONCEPT
OF EQUALITY OF PAY IS TO BE FOLLOWED EVEN IN TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT AS OF BETWEEN MAN AND
MAN OR WOMAN AND WOMAN I.E. IT DOES NOT GRANT A RIGHT THAT MAN MUST BE PAID EQUALLY
AMONG THEMSELVES AND WOMAN AMONG THEMSELVES IF THEY PERFORM THE SAME KIND OF WORK.
THE AFORESAID PROVISION ALSO DOES NOT STATE ANY DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE CAPACITY OF THESE
MEN AND WOMEN AND THAT HAS TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY THE COURTS THEMSELVES.
• ARTICLE 14 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION EXPLAINS THE CONCEPT OF EQUALITY BEFORE LAW. THE
CONCEPT OF EQUALITY DOES NOT MEAN ABSOLUTE EQUALITY AMONG HUMAN BEINGS WHICH IS
PHYSICALLY NOT POSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE. IT IS A CONCEPT IMPLYING ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIAL
PRIVILEGE BY REASON OF BIRTH, CREED OR THE LIKE IN FAVOR OF ANY INDIVIDUAL, AND ALSO THE
EQUAL SUBJECT OF ALL INDIVIDUALS AND CLASSES TO THE ORDINARY LAW OF THE LAND. AS DR.
JENNINGS PUTS IT: "EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW MEANS THAT AMONG EQUALS THE LAW SHOULD BE
EQUAL AND SHOULD BE EQUALLY ADMINISTERED, THAT LIKE SHOULD BE TREATED ALIKE.

6. RANDHIR SINGH V. UNION OF INDIA
THE PETITIONER WAS A DRIVER-CONSTABLE IN THE DELHI POLICE FORCE UNDER DELHI ADMINISTRATION . WHO CLAIMED THAT
HIS SCALE OF PAY SHOULD BE THE SAME AS THE SCALE OF PAY OF OTHER DRIVERS IN THE SERVICE OF THE DELHI
ADMINISTRATION AS HE DISCHARGED THE SAME DUTIES AS THE REST OF THE DRIVERS IN THE OTHER OFFICES IN THIS
LANDMARK CASE THE COURT CONCEDED THAT, THOUGH THE EQUATION OF POSTS AND EQUATIONS OF PAY WERE MATTERS
PRIMARILY FOR THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT AND EXPERT BODIES LIKE THE PAY COMMISSION AND NOT FOR COURTS TO
DECIDE BUT PERSONS HOLDING IDENTICAL POSTS WERE NOT TO BE TREATED DIFFERENTIALLY IN THE MATTERS OF PAY MERELY
BECAUSE THEY BELONGED TO DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS. IT WAS THIS CASE IN WHICH THE COURT HELD FOR THE FIRST TIME
THAT THOUGH THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK WAS NOT EXPRESSLY DECLARED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO BE A
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, IT WAS CERTAINLY A CONSTITUTIONAL GOAL. THE COURT ALSO FIRST TIME CONTEMPLATED THE FACT
THAT THE DOCTRINE PROCLAIMING „EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK‟ FOR BOTH MEN AND WOMEN MEANT „EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL
WORK‟ OR EVERYONE AS AND BETWEEN SEXES. THE COURT EXTENDED THE PURVIEW OF THE DOCTRINE UNDER RIGHT OF
EQUALITY AND STATED THAT ART.14 OF THE CONSTITUTION ENJOINED THE STATE NOT TO DENY ANY PERSON EQUALITY BEFORE
THE LAW OR THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS AND SIMULTANEOUSLY ART. 16 DECLARED THAT THERE SHALL BE EQUALITY
OF OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL CITIZENS .IN MATTERS RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT OR APPOINTMENT TO ANY OFFICE UNDER THE
STATE AND IT WAS IN THIS CONTEXT THAT THE DOCTRINE OF EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK WAS TO BE ADJUDGED.

7. DHARWAD DISTRICT PWD LITERATE DAILY WAGES EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION V. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THIS CASE WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT THROUGH A SERIES OF WRIT PETITIONS ASKING FOR QUASHING A
NOTIFICATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND FOR ISSUING DIRECTIONS TO GOVERNMENT TO CONFIRM THE DAILY RATED
AND MONTHLY RATED EMPLOYEES AS REGULAR GOVERNMENT SERVANTS AND FOR PAYMENT OF NORMAL SALARIES TO THOSE
WORKERS EMPLOYED UNDER TEMPORARY TERMS. THE PETITIONS WERE MADE, PLEADING THAT ABOUT 50,000 DAILY-WAGE
WORKERS WERE EMPLOYED IN THE DIFFERENT GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHMENTS AND THOUGH MANY OF THEM HAD PUT IN 16 TO 20
YEARS OF CONTINUOUS SERVICE, THEY WERE NOT REGULARIZED IN THEIR SERVICE AND WERE NOT BEING PAID EQUALLY, VIOLATING
THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK AS MANDATED BY THE COURT. THE PETITIONS CLAIMED FOR THE PAY OF SUCH
WORKMEN AT THE RATES EQUIVALENT TO THE MINIMUM PAY IN THE PAY-SCALES OF THE REGULARLY EMPLOYED WORKERS. THE
COURT LAID THAT THE EQUALITY CLAUSES OF THE CONSTITUTION UNDER ARTICLES 14 AND 16 WERE TO BE CONSTRUED IN THE LIGHT
OF THE PREAMBLE AND ARTICLE 39(D), AND IT FOLLOWED THAT THE PRINCIPLE. EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK WAS DEDUCIBLE FROM
THOSE ARTICLES AND COULD PROPERLY BE APPLIED TO CASES OF UNEQUAL SCALES OF PAY BASED ON THE CLASSIFICATION OR
IRRATIONAL CLASSIFICATION.

8. Deena v. Union of India
It was held that labor taken from prisoners without paying proper remuneration was “forced labor" and violation of Art. 23 of the
Constitution. There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under
the State. No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible
for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State. They are however non-justifiable rights on the
people, which set out the economic, social and political goals of the Indian Constitutional system, and place the government under a
moral obligation to achieve and maximize social welfare and basic social values like education, employment, health etc. However, the
Courts in India and the Supreme Court in particular have constantly and consistently regarded the principle of equal pay for equal work
as constitutional goal, much higher than being a mere Directive Principle, and have subsequently enforced it in-tandem with the
fundamental rights, enshrined under Right to Equality (Art. 14-18). Article 39(d) thus it is clear that while framers of the Constitution
incorporated this provision, they only kept in contemplation that there should not be any discrimination in terms of pay on grounds of
sex or gender of the person. The Supreme Court continuously and consistently increasing the purview of this doctrine has gone far off
to make new interpretations so that any sort of discrimination, unless based on reasonable grounds, does not go un-refuted. It was this
case in which the Court held for the first time that though the principle of equal pay for equal work was not expressly declared by the
Constitution to be fundamental right, it was certainly a constitutional Goal. The Court also first time contemplated the fact that the
doctrine proclaiming “Equal pay for equal work "for both men and women meant “Equal pay for equal work” for everyone as and
between sexes. A temporary or casual employee performing the same duties and functions is entitled to the same pay as paid to a
permanent employee. Similarly, the difference in mode of selection will not affect the application of the doctrine of "equal pay for equal
work”. If both the classes of persons perform similar functions and duties under the same employer.

9. CONCLUSION
The various provisions for the payment of remuneration at equal rates are provided in Chapter II of the Act and
almost all the provisions point to similar ends and ultimately direct the employers not to practice
discrimination while recruitment, while payment or even while considering employees for promotion. The Act
also provides for maintenance of registers in the organizations, creation of posts of Inspectors and other
related offices to keep a check on such prejudiced practices, which are likely to affect the provisions of the
Act. It speaks extensively of what the employers have to follow but is silent on the point of reasonable
classification with the apex court has pointed out freely and exhaustively. The Act does not, also, lay any
provision as to whether the qualifications of the employees are to be considered while framing paying
packages or not. The only thing which the Act point to is that the employer must not discriminate on the basis
of the sex of the worker if both man and woman are doing same or similar kind of work. Thus it is merely an
enactment of Article 39(d) of the Constitution in its strict sense, leaving the scope of interpretation to the
Courts.

10. SUGGESTIONS
1. The equal remuneration act should not focus only on gender discrimination.
2. 2. Equal pay for equal work should be mentioned as constitutional goal in writing so that
it can be implemented strictly.
3. The degree of skill, the strain of work, experience involved, training required,
responsibility undertaken, mental and physical requirements, disagreeableness of the
task, hazards involved etc. were some of the relevant factors which were to be taken into
consideration while fixing the pay scales. The method of recruitment, the level at which
the recruitment was made in the hierarchy of service or cadre, minimum educational and
technical requirements prescribed for the post, were also some of the relevant factors.
4. The criteria to define equal work should be clearly mentioned.

11. THANK YOU