If there is a the differentiation in pay scales among employees holding same post and performing similar work, but difference in the degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality- it can be called as valid differentiation. it is for further clarification, where employees are equal in every respect, in educational qualifications, duties, functions and measures of responsibilities and yet they are denied equality in pay. Iif the classification for describing different scale of pay is found to be on reasonable and logical, the principal will not apply. When equal pay for equal work still is not applicable? The Constitution of India 1949: Art.39 (d) says the state has to ensure that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women.
Equal pay for equal work is a fundamental right?
Though the principle is not expressly declared by the Constitution to be a fundamental right yet it may be concluded by construing Arts. 14 and 16 in the light of Art.39(d).
Indian Parliament has enacted the equal remuneration act, 1976, to implement Art.39(d). The act provides for payment of equal remuneration to mend and women workers for the same work, or work of a similar nature and for the prevention of discrimination against recruitment of women and provides for the setting up of advisory committees to promote employment opportunities for a women. Provision is also made from appointment of officers for hearing and deciding complaints regarding contraventions of the provisions of the Act. Inspectors are to be appointed for the purpose of investigating whether the provisions of the Act are being compiled by the employer's. Non-observance of the Act by government contractors has been held to raise question under Art. 14. of Constitution Of India 1949 i.e. Equality before law: The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
Service Law – the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ would be
applicable to all the concerned temporary employees, so as to vest in
them the right to claim wages, at par with the minimum of the pay-scale
of regularly engaged Government employees, holding the same post. State
of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh [Supreme Court of India, 26-10-2016].
Equal pay for equal work constitutional right, SC reiterates
NEW DELHI, Oct 27, 2016, DHNS
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said any
employer paying less wages to temporary staff was indulging in an “act
of exploitative enslavement”.
state. Such an action
besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human
dignity,” a bench of Justices J S Khehar and S A Bobde said.
It has already been held that ‘equal pay for equal work’ is a constitutional principle, said the apex court.
court also decried any move to make differential treatment with
temporary employees at times described as daily-wage employees, ad hoc
appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees
and the like.
“It is fallacious to determine artificial
parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same
work, cannot be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and
responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare
court said any one, compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so
voluntarily as he has to provide food and shelter to his family “at the
cost of his self respect and dignity, self worth, and his integrity.”
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,” the bench said.