Principle of Equal pay for Equal

work
Service Law

Vikram Choudhary
Roll No. – 14077
Group No.- III
 INTRODUCTION

• Preamble and Equality clause of constitution

• Equality before law and equal protection of law

Principles of Labour Welfare

Principle of Social Principle of Totality Principle of

Responsibility of Welfare Democratic Values
 Constitutional
Jurisprudence

• RBI vs. Sahasraman-> point of justice from Majority

• Yusus vs. State of Bombay-> special provision for
women and child
• Priciple of Effective Equality

Reasonable
classification

Classification
in services

Based on Same work,

degree of similar work
skill etc. conditions
 Equal remuneration Act
• Objective of the Act - to provide for not only payment of equal
remuneration to men and
• women employees for the same work or work of similar nature

• for the prevention of discrimination on account of sex but also to

ensure that there is no discrimination against recruitment of women

• the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ was first considered in
Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi case where the SCI declared it incapable of
being enforced in the court of law.
However, it received due recognition only in 1987 through Mackinnon
Mackenzie’s case which involved a claim for equal remuneration for lady and
male stenographers.
 Applicability of Doctrine

Context
•Not only include •Difference in
pay but also duties and
includes •Inapplicable in responsibilities in
area of
allowances work
professional
services
Other benefits
Result
as well

The workers must work under the same employer

An interesting question arose before the SCI on whether the applicability of the doctrine
of‘equal pay for equal work’ should be extended to persons working under the same
employer or not? The Court in its wisdom held in Jaipal case that for the applicability of
the doctrine, the concerned group of persons seeking equality must be working under the
same employer
 Case study: State of Punjab VS. Jagjit Singh

▫ upheld the Constitutional principle of ‘equal pay for equal

work’ with respect to temporary employees vis-a –vis
permanent employees in the Government sector.
▫ held that temporary employees performing similar duties
and functions as performed by permanent employees were
entitled to draw wages at par with similarly placed
permanent employees.

 Issue for consideration

to decide whether temporarily engaged employees (daily-wage employees,
ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual
employees and the like can be treated alike
Or whether they are entitled to minimum of the regular pay-scale, along
with dearness allowance (as revised from time to time) on account of their
performing the same duties, which were discharged by those engaged on
regular basis, against sanctioned posts ?
 Contradictory views of High Court and
conclusive judgment in Jagjit singh case

State of
State of
Punjab vs.
Punjab vs.
Rajinder
Avatar singh
singh

State of Settled in
Punjab v. state of
Rajinder Punjab vs.
Kumar Jagjit singh