Equal Pay for Equal Work in India: Constitutional Foundations, Legislative Framework and Judicial Evolution

Introduction

The principle of equal pay for equal work represents one of the most fundamental aspects of employment equality and social justice in contemporary legal systems. In India, this principle has evolved from being a mere constitutional aspiration to becoming an enforceable right through judicial interpretation and legislative intervention. The doctrine ensures that individuals performing identical or substantially similar work under comparable conditions receive equivalent remuneration, irrespective of their gender, caste, religion, or employment status.

The significance of this principle extends beyond mere wage parity—it embodies the constitutional promise of equality enshrined in the Preamble and fundamental rights provisions of the Indian Constitution. While initially considered non-justiciable as part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, the Supreme Court of India has progressively recognized and enforced this principle as a constitutional mandate, drawing strength from Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Constitutional Framework

Article 39(d) and the Directive Principles

The constitutional foundation of equal pay for equal work in India rests primarily on Article 39(d) of the Constitution, which falls under Part IV – the Directive Principles of State Policy [1]. This provision specifically states that “the State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women.” The inclusion of this principle among the Directive Principles reflects the framers’ understanding of its fundamental importance in creating a just and equitable society.

The Directive Principles, though not originally enforceable by courts, serve as fundamental guidelines for governance and policy formulation. They represent the constitutional vision of a welfare state that ensures social and economic justice for all citizens. Article 39(d) was particularly revolutionary for its time, explicitly addressing gender-based wage discrimination and establishing the state’s obligation to eliminate such disparities.

Integration with Fundamental Rights

The transformative interpretation of equal pay for equal work began with its integration into the fundamental rights framework. The Supreme Court has consistently held that while Article 39(d) may not be directly enforceable, it must be read in conjunction with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution to derive its enforceable character [2].

Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws to all persons within the territory of India. This provision forms the bedrock of the equal pay principle by prohibiting arbitrary discrimination and ensuring that similarly situated individuals are treated equally. The Court has interpreted this article to encompass not just formal equality but substantive equality in employment conditions.

Article 16 specifically addresses equality of opportunity in matters of public employment, ensuring that no citizen shall be discriminated against on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, or residence in respect of any employment or office under the State. The integration of these provisions creates a comprehensive framework for employment equality that extends to remuneration matters.

Legislative Framework

The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976

The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, represents India’s primary legislative response to gender-based wage discrimination [3]. Enacted to give statutory force to the constitutional principle, this Act establishes comprehensive mechanisms for ensuring equal pay between men and women workers performing the same or similar work.

Section 4 of the Act contains the core prohibition against discriminatory remuneration. It mandates that no employer shall pay to any worker at rates less than those paid to workers of the opposite sex for performing the same work or work of a similar nature. The provision includes three crucial subsections that strengthen its implementation. Section 4(1) establishes the basic principle of equal remuneration, while Section 4(2) contains an anti-regression clause that prohibits employers from reducing the remuneration of any worker to comply with the equality requirement.

Perhaps most significantly, Section 4(3) addresses historical wage disparities by providing that where different rates of remuneration existed before the Act’s commencement based solely on sex, the higher rate shall become the applicable rate for all workers. This provision prevents employers from achieving equality by reducing wages to the lower level, instead requiring upward harmonization.

The Act defines “same work or work of a similar nature” as work requiring the same skill, effort, and responsibility when performed under similar working conditions. This definition provides objective criteria for determining when equal pay obligations arise, moving beyond mere job titles to focus on substantive work content.

Enforcement Mechanisms

The Act establishes a comprehensive enforcement framework through appointed authorities and inspectors. Section 7 empowers the appropriate government to appoint authorities for investigating complaints and ensuring compliance. These authorities possess powers equivalent to civil courts for conducting inquiries and can compel production of documents and examination of witnesses.

The Act also provides for advisory committees at central and state levels to review implementation and suggest measures for increasing employment opportunities for women. These committees play a crucial role in policy development and monitoring compliance across different sectors.

The Code on Wages, 2019

The recently enacted Code on Wages, 2019, has consolidated and modernized wage-related legislation, including provisions from the Equal Remuneration Act [4]. The Code maintains the principle of equal remuneration while expanding its scope beyond gender to include other forms of discrimination. This consolidation represents a significant step toward comprehensive wage equality legislation.

Landmark Judicial Pronouncements

Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982)

The landmark judgment in Randhir Singh v. Union of India fundamentally transformed the legal status of equal pay for equal work in India [5]. The case involved Randhir Singh, a driver-constable in the Delhi Police Force, who challenged the disparity in pay scales between drivers in different government departments performing identical duties.

The Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Chinnappa Reddy, delivered a judgment that would become the cornerstone of equal pay jurisprudence in India. The Court held that while the principle of “equal pay for equal work” is not expressly declared as a fundamental right in the Constitution, it is certainly a constitutional goal that can be achieved through constitutional remedies.

The Court’s reasoning was particularly significant in establishing the interconnection between the Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights. Justice Reddy observed that “Directive Principles have to be read into the fundamental rights as a matter of interpretation.” This interpretive approach allowed the Court to derive the principle of equal pay from Articles 14 and 16, read in light of Article 39(d).

The judgment emphasized that equality clauses must have practical significance for the vast majority of citizens, particularly in matters relating to work and wages. The Court noted that while complex constitutional questions about governmental policies might not directly affect ordinary citizens, issues concerning wages are of vital concern to millions and represent the practical application of constitutional equality.

Most importantly, the Court established that the principle applies when employees perform identical work under the same employer, regardless of their department or classification, unless there is a rational basis for differential treatment based on relevant factors such as qualifications, experience, or genuinely different responsibilities.

Evolution Through Subsequent Decisions

Following Randhir Singh, the Supreme Court has consistently applied and refined the equal pay principle through numerous decisions. In Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P. (1986), the Court extended the principle to casual and temporary employees, holding that persons employed on a casual basis and performing the same duties as regular employees are entitled to equal remuneration [6].

The case of Jaipal v. State of Haryana (1988) further clarified that the temporary or permanent nature of employment does not affect the applicability of equal pay for equal work [7]. The Court emphasized that instructors and squad teachers performing similar work in the same department are entitled to equal pay regardless of their employment status.

In State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia (1989), the Supreme Court reiterated that “equal pay for equal work for both men and women has been accepted as a constitutional goal capable of being achieved through constitutional remedies” [8]. This pronouncement reinforced the justiciable nature of the principle and its enforceability through writ jurisdiction.

Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association v. Union of India (1989)

This case further established the principle’s application within the judicial system itself, as Supreme Court employees sought pay parity with their counterparts in other government departments [9]. The Court’s willingness to apply equal pay principles to its own employees demonstrated the universal applicability of the doctrine across all governmental institutions.

Regulatory Framework and Implementation

Central and State Level Implementation

The implementation of equal pay for equal work operates at two distinct levels under the Equal Remuneration Act. At the central level, the Act applies to employment carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, railway administration, banking companies, mines, oil fields, major ports, and corporations established under Central Acts. The Central Government has appointed Labour Enforcement Officers as inspectors to ensure compliance with the Act’s provisions.

At the state level, implementation covers all other employments not falling under central jurisdiction. State governments are responsible for enforcing the Act’s provisions through their labour departments and designated authorities. This dual structure ensures comprehensive coverage while respecting the federal division of powers.

Monitoring and Advisory Mechanisms

The Central Advisory Committee established under the Act plays a crucial role in monitoring implementation and advising the government on policy matters. The Committee, reconstituted periodically, comprises representatives from government, employers, and workers, ensuring multi-stakeholder involvement in policy development.

The Committee’s mandate includes reviewing the implementation of the Act, suggesting measures for increasing employment opportunities for women, and addressing emerging challenges in wage equality. This institutional mechanism provides ongoing oversight and policy guidance for effective implementation.

Contemporary Challenges and Developments

Gender Pay Gap Persistence

Despite comprehensive legal frameworks, significant gender pay gaps persist across various sectors in India. Cultural attitudes, occupational segregation, and inadequate enforcement mechanisms continue to perpetuate wage disparities. Women’s concentration in lower-paying occupations and limited representation in senior positions contribute to overall wage inequality.

The challenge is compounded by the prevalence of informal employment relationships where legal protections may be limited or poorly enforced. Addressing these structural issues requires not only legal remedies but also broader social and economic interventions.

Sectoral Variations

The application of equal pay principles varies significantly across different sectors. While public sector employment generally shows better compliance due to structured pay scales and transparent promotion systems, private sector implementation faces greater challenges. Service sectors, manufacturing industries, and informal economy segments each present unique enforcement challenges.

Recent judicial decisions have attempted to address these sectoral variations by emphasizing the universal applicability of equal pay principles regardless of the nature of employment or sector involved.

Expanding Scope Beyond Gender

Contemporary interpretations of equal pay for equal work have begun expanding beyond gender-based discrimination to encompass other forms of workplace inequality. Courts have applied the principle to address disparities based on employment status (permanent versus temporary), departmental affiliations, and other potentially discriminatory classifications.

This expansion reflects the evolving understanding of workplace equality and the principle’s potential to address various forms of employment discrimination.

International Perspectives and Comparative Analysis

The principle of equal pay for equal work has gained universal recognition through various international instruments. The International Labour Organization’s Convention No. 100 concerning Equal Remuneration for Men and Women Workers for Work of Equal Value, adopted in 1951, established international standards that influenced India’s legislative approach.

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) further reinforces the obligation to ensure equal remuneration for work of equal value. India’s ratification of these instruments created international legal obligations that complement domestic constitutional and legislative provisions.

Comparative analysis with other jurisdictions reveals similar challenges in implementation despite robust legal frameworks. Countries like the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have developed sophisticated equal pay legislation with enforcement mechanisms that provide valuable lessons for strengthening India’s approach.

Future Directions and Recommendations

Strengthening Enforcement

Enhanced enforcement mechanisms are crucial for translating legal principles into practical reality. This includes expanding the capacity of labour inspectorates, improving complaint redressal systems, and developing sector-specific implementation guidelines.

The use of technology in monitoring compliance and processing complaints could significantly improve enforcement effectiveness. Digital platforms for wage transparency and complaint filing could enhance accessibility and reduce bureaucratic barriers.

Legislative Reforms

The consolidation of wage-related legislation under the Code on Wages, 2019, provides an opportunity to strengthen equal pay provisions. Future amendments could expand the scope of protection, enhance penalties for non-compliance, and introduce proactive measures for addressing wage gaps.

Consideration should be given to adopting pay equity models that go beyond equal pay for identical work to encompass equal pay for work of equal value, addressing occupational segregation and systemic undervaluation of women-dominated professions.

Institutional Strengthening

Strengthening advisory committees and oversight mechanisms is essential for effective policy implementation. Regular review of wage structures, sector-specific studies, and stakeholder consultations could improve policy responsiveness and effectiveness.

The establishment of specialized equal pay tribunals or fast-track mechanisms for resolving wage discrimination complaints could enhance access to justice and reduce litigation delays.

Conclusion

The principle of equal pay for equal work in India has undergone remarkable evolution from a constitutional aspiration to an enforceable legal right. The journey from Article 39(d) of the Constitution to the comprehensive framework established through legislation and judicial interpretation demonstrates the dynamic nature of constitutional law and its capacity to address societal challenges.

The landmark judgment in Randhir Singh v. Union of India fundamentally transformed the legal landscape by establishing the justiciable nature of equal pay principles and their derivation from fundamental rights provisions. Subsequent judicial decisions have consistently reinforced and expanded this principle, creating a robust jurisprudential foundation for wage equality.

The legislative framework, anchored by the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, and now consolidated under the Code on Wages, 2019, provides comprehensive mechanisms for ensuring wage equality. However, the persistence of gender pay gaps and implementation challenges highlight the need for continued vigilance and strengthened enforcement.

The constitutional mandate for equal pay for equal work reflects India’s commitment to social justice and equality. Its effective implementation requires not only robust legal frameworks but also cultural transformation, institutional strengthening, and sustained political commitment. As India continues its journey toward becoming a more equitable society, the principle of equal pay for equal work remains a fundamental tool for achieving constitutional promises of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity.

The doctrine’s evolution demonstrates that constitutional principles, even those initially considered non-justiciable, can acquire enforceable character through judicial interpretation and legislative action. This transformation offers valuable lessons for realizing other constitutional aspirations and achieving the broader goal of social and economic justice enshrined in India’s constitutional framework.

References

[1] The Constitution of India, Article 39(d). Available at: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2008 

[2] Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1230349/ 

[3] The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 (Act No. 25 of 1976). Available at: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/1494 

[4] The Code on Wages, 2019 (No. 29 of 2019). Available at: https://labour.gov.in/womenlabour/equal-remuneration-acts-and-rules-1976 

[5] Randhir Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 879. Available at: https://lawbhoomi.com/randhir-singh-v-union-of-india/ 

[6] Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P., (1986) 1 SCC 637

[7] Jaipal v. State of Haryana, (1988) 3 SCC 354

[8] State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia, (1989) 1 SCC 121

[9] Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 187. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/631715/