Equal Remuneration — Equal Pay for Equal Work — Labour Law I Notes

Equal Remuneration

A man and a woman do the same work on the same machine. Can the employer pay her less simply because she is a woman? The Constitution said no in principle (Article 39(d)); the Code on Wages now says no in black-letter law.

What it requires

Chapter II of the Code on Wages, 2019 carries forward the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976. Its core rule, s.3, prohibits discrimination on the ground of gender in matters of wages for the same work or work of a similar nature, and in recruitment (except where the law bars or restricts women’s employment in particular work).

Section 3, Code on Wages, 2019 (close paraphrase): “There shall be no discrimination in an establishment or any unit thereof among employees on the ground of gender in matters relating to wages by the same employer, in respect of the same work or work of a similar nature done by any employee.”

Same work or work of a similar nature means work requiring the same skill, effort and responsibility under similar conditions. Disputes (s.4) about whether two jobs are of a similar nature are decided by the authority notified by the Government.

Scope & object: the object is to give effect to Article 39(d) (“equal pay for equal work for both men and women”) and Article 14 equality. It applies across establishments and bars both unequal pay and gender-based bias in hiring for the same or similar work.

In Simple Terms: for the same work, or work of a similar nature, a man and a woman must be paid the same, and gender cannot be a reason to refuse a job — giving real force to the constitutional promise of equal pay for equal work.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Equal Remuneration (s.3, Code on Wages)"]:::root
    ROOT --> A["No gender discrimination in WAGES<br/>for same / similar work"]:::good
    ROOT --> B["No gender discrimination in RECRUITMENT"]:::good
    ROOT --> C["Disputes on 'similar work' -> notified authority (s.4)"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> D["Gives effect to Art. 39(d) & Art. 14"]:::leaf
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef good fill:#E8F5E9,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

Randhir Singh v Union of India (1982) — “equal pay for equal work” is enforceable, read from Articles 14, 16 and 39(d).
Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd v Audrey D’Costa (1987) — women lady stenographers doing the same work as men must be paid equally; the equal-remuneration law applied.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Labour Law I topics