- (1.) Historically, the doctrine of equal pay for equal work has been associated with the movement against discrimination based on sex. Equal pay laws, like Equal Pay Act, 1970 and the Equal Pay (Amendment) Regulations, 1984 enacted by the British Parliament and the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 enacted by the Indian Parliament provide for payment of equal remuneration to men and women and are meant to prevent discrimination against women on the ground of sex. The framers of the Indian Constitution incorporated the concept of equal pay for equal work in Article 39(d). In the last three decades, the Courts have applied this doctrine to invalidate the action of the State and its instrumentalities to discriminate similarly situated employees in the matter of grant of pay scales, fixation of pay etc. In Kishori Mohan Lal Bakshi v. Union of India, 1962 AIR(SC) 1139 a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court declared that abstract doctrine of equal pay for equal work had nothing to do with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, after 19 years, the Supreme Court gave a revolutionary interpretation to the said doctrine in Randhir Singh v. Union of India, 1982 AIR(SC) 879 and treated it as a part of the doctrine of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India by making the following observations : "It is true that the principle of equal pay for equal work is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right. But it certainly is a Constitutional goal. Article 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims 'equal pay for equal work for both men and women' as a Directive Principle of State Policy. Equal pay for equal work for both men and women means equal pay for equal work for everyone and as between the sexes. Directive principles, as he has been pointed out in some of the judgments of this Court have to be read into the fundamental rights as a matter of interpretation. Article 14 of the Constitution enjoins the State not to deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws and Article 16 declares that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. These equality clauses of the Constitution must mean something to everyone. To the vast majority of the people the equality clauses of the Constitution would mean nothing if they are unconcerned with the work they do and the pay they get. To them, the equality clauses will have some substance if equal work means equal pay. Whether the special procedure prescribed by a statute for trying alleged robber-barons and smuggler kings or for dealing with tax evaders is discriminatory, whether a particular Governmental policy in the matter of grant of licences or permits confers unfettered discretion on the Executive, whether the take-over of the empires of industrial tycoons is arbitrary and unconstitutional and other questions of like nature, leave the millions of people of this country untouched. Questions concerning wages and the like, mundane they may be, are yet matters of vital concern to them and it is there, if at all that the equality clauses of the Constitution have any significance to them. The preamble to the Constitution declares the solemn resolution of the people of India to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Democratic Republic. Again the word 'Socialist' must mean something. Even if it does not mean 'To each according to his need', it must at least mean 'equal pay for equal work'. The principle of equal pay for equal work is expressly recognised by all socialist systems of law, e.g., Section 59 of the Hungarian Labour Code, para 2 of Section 111 of the Czechoslovak Code, Section 67 of the Bulgarian Code, Section 40 of the Code of the German Democratic Republic, para 2 of Section 33 of the Rumanian Code. Indeed this principle has been incorporated in several western labour codes too. Under provisions in Section 31 (g. No. 2d) of Book I of the French Code Du Travail, and according to Argentinian law, this principle must be applied to female workers in all collective bargaining agreements. In accordance with section 3 of the Grundgestz of the German Federal Republic, and Clause 7, Section 123 of the Mexican Constitution, the principle is given universal significance (vide : International Labour Law by Istvan Szaszy p. 265). The preamble of the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation recognises the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value as constituting one of the means of achieving the improvement of conditions "involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperiled". Construing Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the Preamble and Article 39(d), we are of the view that the principle "Equal pay for equal work" is deducible from those Articles and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer."
(2.) The new dimension given to the doctrine of equal pay for equal work in Randhir Singh's case led to the filing of hundreds of petitions by employees in different High Courts and the Supreme Court claiming parity in the matter of pay scales etc. and one can find a number of reported decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Courts in which the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' was invoked for granting relief to the petitioners. However, in State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia and others, 1989 AIR(SC) 19 the Supreme Court adopted a cautious approach and accepted the plea of the State that different pay scales can be prescribed for persons holding similar posts. The propositions laid down in that case read as under : "Equal pay for equal work for both men and women" has been accepted as a 'constitutional goal' capable of being achieved through constitutional remedies. Article 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims "equal pay for equal work". This article and other like provisions in the Directive Principles are rooted in social justice. They were intended to bring about a socio-economic transformation in cur society. In matters of employment the Government of a socialist State must protect the weaker sections. It must be ensured that there is no exploitation of poor and ignorant. It is the duty of the State to see that the under-privileged or weaker sections get their dues. Even if they have voluntarily accepted the employment on unequal terms, the State should not deny their basic rights of equal treatment. It is against this background that the principle of equal pay for equal work has to be construed in the first place. Second, this principle has no mechanical application in every case of similar work. It has to be read into Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 14 permits reasonable classification founded on different basis. It is now well established that the classification can be based on some qualities or characteristics of persons grouped together and not in others who are left out. Those qualities or characteristics must, of course, have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. In service matters, merit or experience could be the proper basis for classification to promote efficiency in administration. He or she learns also by experience as much as by other means. It cannot be denied that the quality of work performed by persons of longer experience is superior than the work of newcomers. Higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues is very common in career service. The entitlement to those higher pay scales depends upon seniority- cum-merit or merit-cum-seniority. The differentiation so made in the same cadre will not amount to discrimination. The classification based on experience is a reasonable classification. It has a rational nexus with the object thereof. To hold otherwise, it would be detrimental to the interest of the service itself. Thus there can be two scales of pay in the same cadre of persons performing the same or similar work or duties." .
(3.) In that particular case, the Supreme Court held that prescription of different pay scales for the Bench Secretaries of the High Court of Allahabad was based on proper classification and did not violate Articles 14 and 16 read with Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India.;