51 The Equal Remuneration Act 1976: ILO Convention 100 (1951), India’s Ratification (1958), Object, Definitions of “Same Work or Work of a Similar Nature”, Prohibition of Discrimination in Remuneration and Recruitment (Sections 4-5), Mackinnon Mackenzie (1987), Nargesh Meerza (1981), Randhir Singh (1982) and the Code on Wages 2019
51.1 A Statute Meant to End Two Forms of Pay Discrimination
The Equal Remuneration Act 1976 addresses two forms of pay discrimination that had long persisted in Indian industry. The first is discrimination in remuneration — paying women less than men for the same work, or paying men less than women in occupations where gender preference cut the other way. The second is discrimination in recruitment, transfer, promotion and training — refusing to even consider a candidate of a particular gender, or conditioning service on marital and reproductive status. The Act gives statutory effect to Article 39(d) of the Constitution and to ILO Convention 100 (1951), which India ratified in 1958. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Act through cases like Mackinnon Mackenzie (1987), Nargesh Meerza (1981) and Randhir Singh (1982) — together turning equal pay into an enforceable constitutional doctrine. The Act has now been subsumed within the Code on Wages 2019, which goes further by being gender-neutral, applying to all genders and all employments.
51.2 1 · Background — ILO Convention 100 and Article 39(d)
| Pillar | Substance |
|---|---|
| ILO Convention 100 (1951) — “Equal Remuneration for Men and Women Workers for Work of Equal Value” | India ratified on 25 September 1958 |
| Article 39(d), Constitution of India | Directive principle — equal pay for equal work for both men and women |
| Article 14 + Article 16 | Equality and equal opportunity in public employment — basis for judicial enforcement |
Before 1976, India had no statute specifically aimed at gender-based pay discrimination. The Equal Remuneration Ordinance was promulgated on 26 September 1975 during the International Women’s Year; the Ordinance was followed by the Equal Remuneration Act 1976, which came into force on 8 March 1976 — International Women’s Day.
India ratified ILO Convention 100 on 25 September 1958 — long before the 1976 statute. The statute was enacted to give domestic effect to the international obligation. NTA stems frequently test the 1958 ratification date against the 1976 statute year.
51.3 2 · Object, Extent and Commencement
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Year | 1976 (Act 25 of 1976) |
| Commencement | 8 March 1976 |
| Object | To provide for the payment of equal remuneration to men and women workers and for the prevention of discrimination on the ground of sex against women in matters of employment |
| Extent | The whole of India |
| Successor | Code on Wages 2019 |
51.4 3 · Key Definitions — Section 2
| Term | Section | Substance |
|---|---|---|
| Remuneration | 2(g) | The basic wage or salary and any additional emoluments whatsoever payable, in cash or in kind, by an employer to a person employed in respect of employment or work done if the terms of the contract of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled |
| Same work or work of a similar nature | 2(h) | Work in respect of which the skill, effort and responsibility required are the same, when performed under similar working conditions, by a man or a woman — and the differences (if any) between the skill, effort and responsibility required of a man and those required of a woman are not of practical importance in relation to the terms and conditions of employment |
| Worker | 2(i) | A worker in any establishment or employment in respect of which the Act has come into force |
| Employer | 2(d) | Person who employs whether directly or through another person, including a contractor |
| Appropriate government | 2(a) | Central government for railways, banks, mines, oilfields, major ports and corporations established under central Acts; state government otherwise |
51.4.1 The Definition of “Same Work or Work of a Similar Nature”
The definition has been read pragmatically — the question is whether a reasonable comparison of skill, effort and responsibility shows the work to be substantially equal. Identical work is not required; minor variations are immaterial.
51.5 4 · Duty to Pay Equal Remuneration — Section 4
| Provision | Substance |
|---|---|
| 4(1) | No employer shall pay to any worker, employed by him in an establishment or employment, remuneration, whether payable in cash or in kind, at rates less favourable than those at which remuneration is paid by him to the workers of the opposite sex for performing the same work or work of a similar nature |
| 4(2) | No employer shall, for the purpose of complying with sub-section (1), reduce the rate of remuneration of any worker |
| 4(3) | Where the existing rates differ, the higher rate must be paid to all (men and women) |
Section 4(2) prohibits the employer from “levelling down” wages to achieve equality. Section 4(3) requires levelling up — the higher prevailing rate must be paid to all. NTA stems test this protective principle.
51.6 5 · Prohibition of Discrimination at Recruitment, Promotion and Training — Section 5
Section 5 extends equality beyond pay to other terms of employment.
| Provision | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 | No employer shall, while making recruitment for the same work or work of a similar nature, or in any condition of service subsequent to recruitment such as promotions, training or transfer, make any discrimination against women — except where the employment of women in such work is prohibited or restricted by or under any law |
The two main statutory exceptions are:
- Section 46, Mines Act 1952 — prohibition of employment of women below ground.
- Earlier restrictions on women in night shifts under Section 66 of the Factories Act 1948 (now relaxed under the OSH&WC Code 2020 with consent and safeguards).
51.7 6 · Advisory Committee — Section 6
Section 6 requires the appropriate government to constitute an Advisory Committee to advise on increasing employment opportunities for women.
| Provision | Substance |
|---|---|
| Constitution | At least 10 members, of whom not less than one-half must be women |
| Function | Advise the appropriate government on the extent to which women may be employed, with adequate safeguards, in such establishments or employments as the government may specify |
| Procedure | Regulated by rules; tripartite consultation with employers, workers, social bodies |
The composition rule — at least half women — is unusual among Indian advisory bodies and reflects the focused gender-equality purpose of the Act.
51.8 7 · Claims and Complaints — Sections 7 to 8
| Section | Provision |
|---|---|
| 7 | The appropriate government appoints an authority (not below the rank of a Labour Officer) to hear and decide complaints regarding contraventions of Section 4 (equal remuneration) and Section 5 (recruitment / promotion / training) |
| 7(3) | Aggrieved worker / trade union official / inspector / any other person may file a complaint |
| 7(4) | The authority may direct payment of arrears of wages to the worker; appeal lies within 30 days to a designated appellate authority |
| 8 | Inspection of records — employer must maintain registers and other documents in relation to workers employed by him |
51.9 8 · Inspectors and Records — Sections 9 to 10
| Section | Provision |
|---|---|
| 9 | Inspectors appointed by appropriate government — powers of entry, examination, sampling, seizure |
| 10 | Penalties for non-maintenance of records, obstruction of inspector, contravention of equal-pay or non-discrimination duty |
51.10 9 · Penalties — Section 10
| Offence | Punishment (original Act) |
|---|---|
| Non-maintenance of records / non-production for inspection | Simple imprisonment up to 1 month or fine up to Rs 10,000 or both |
| Wilful contravention of Section 4 (equal remuneration) | Imprisonment 3 months to 1 year, or fine Rs 10,000 to Rs 20,000, or both |
| Contravention of Section 5 (recruitment / promotion) | Imprisonment 3 months to 1 year, or fine Rs 10,000 to Rs 20,000, or both |
| Obstruction of inspector | Imprisonment up to 1 year or fine up to Rs 20,000 or both |
These figures are post-amendment; the Code on Wages 2019 further enhances them.
51.11 10 · Section 16 — Power to Make Declarations
Section 16 enables the appropriate government to declare, by notification, that no contravention has been committed where the difference in remuneration or in conditions of employment is not based on sex but on other considerations — such as seniority, length of service, qualifications, etc.
This is the principal exception to the rule and is the basis on which most defences against equal-pay claims are framed. The burden, however, is on the employer to establish the non-gender basis of the differential.
51.12 11 · Landmark Judicial Decisions
51.12.1 Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. v. Audrey D’Costa (1987)
This is the leading Supreme Court decision on the meaning of “same work or work of a similar nature”. A female stenographer claimed that her work was the same as a male stenographer’s, but she was paid less. The Court held that:
- Lady stenographers doing the same work as male stenographers are entitled to equal pay under Section 4.
- The historical wage differential that arose because there were “lady stenographers” and “male stenographers” as distinct categories was unlawful under the Act.
- The fact that the company had once been a separate cadre is no answer; the legal duty is to equalise pay for substantially equal work.
The case became the canonical authority on Section 2(h) and Section 4 in private employment.
51.12.2 Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982)
The Supreme Court held that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” — though formally a directive principle under Article 39(d) — is enforceable as a fundamental right through Articles 14 and 16. The decision married the directive principle to the equality clause and made equal pay justiciable.
51.12.3 Air India v. Nargesh Meerza (1981)
The Supreme Court struck down Air India’s service regulations that required female air hostesses to retire on marriage, first pregnancy, or at age 35 (when their male counterparts continued to age 58). The Court held the rules to be:
- Discriminatory under Article 14.
- Arbitrary in distinguishing between roles that were substantively similar.
- Unrelated to the actual job requirements.
The decision is among the most-cited Indian gender-equality cases.
51.12.4 State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2016)
A bench of the Supreme Court held that temporary, ad-hoc and daily-wage employees doing the same work as regular employees are entitled to equal pay — extending the doctrine into the casual workforce.
51.12.5 Mahatma Phule Agricultural University v. Nasik Zilla Sheth Kamgar Union (2001)
The Supreme Court reiterated that piece-rated workers doing the same work as time-rated workers are entitled to equivalent earnings when output is matched.
| Case | Year | Holding |
|---|---|---|
| Air India v. Nargesh Meerza | 1981 | Marriage / first-pregnancy retirement of air hostesses unconstitutional |
| Randhir Singh v. Union of India | 1982 | Equal pay enforceable via Articles 14 + 16 + 39(d) |
| Mackinnon Mackenzie v. Audrey D’Costa | 1987 | Lady vs male stenographers — equal pay under Section 4 |
| State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh | 2016 | Temporary / daily-wage workers entitled to equal pay |
| Mahatma Phule Agricultural University | 2001 | Piece-rated vs time-rated equivalence |
51.13 12 · Relationship with Other Constitutional / Statutory Provisions
| Instrument | Relationship |
|---|---|
| Article 14 — equality before law | Foundational |
| Article 15(3) — special provisions for women and children | Permits affirmative action |
| Article 16 — equal opportunity in public employment | Foundational for government cases |
| Article 39(d) — equal pay for equal work | Direct directive principle |
| Maternity Benefit Act 1961 / Code on Social Security 2020 | Complementary protection of women workers |
| Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (POSH) Act 2013 | Complementary — non-pay form of discrimination |
| Minimum Wages Act 1948 / Code on Wages 2019 | Sets the floor; ER Act ensures equality above it |
| ILO C-100 (1951) | International parent convention |
| ILO C-111 (1958) — Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) | India ratified 1960 |
51.14 13 · Position under the Code on Wages 2019
The Code on Wages 2019 subsumes the Equal Remuneration Act 1976 with two notable advances.
| Provision | 1976 Act | Code on Wages 2019 |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Men vs women only | All genders — including non-binary / transgender (gender-neutral) |
| Applicability | Specified establishments and employments | Universal — all employments |
| Duty of equal pay | Section 4 — same work / similar nature | Continued |
| Non-discrimination in recruitment etc. | Section 5 | Continued, with broader gender coverage |
| Advisory Committee | Section 6 | Subsumed within general advisory framework |
| Authorities | Section 7 authority | Inspector-cum-Facilitator model |
| Penalties | Up to Rs 20,000 / 1 year | Substantially enhanced |
The Code’s gender-neutral framing is a significant advance — discrimination between men, women and any other gender identity is now prohibited.
51.15 14 · Significance and Critique
- First Indian statute specifically addressing gender-based pay discrimination.
- Gave statutory effect to ILO Convention 100 and Article 39(d).
- The Supreme Court’s interpretive work — Mackinnon Mackenzie (1987) and others — gave concrete content to the abstract phrase “same work or work of a similar nature”.
-
Critique:
- Continuing gender pay gap in PLFS data indicates that statutory equality has not eliminated practical inequality.
- The “other considerations” defence under Section 16 has sometimes been stretched.
- The Act left occupational segregation untouched — women clustering in low-paid sectors.
- Enforcement has been thin; few cases reach the Section 7 authority.
- The Code on Wages 2019 addresses some gaps — gender-neutral coverage, universal applicability, enhanced penalties — but cannot by itself close structural pay gaps.
51.16 Practice Questions
The Equal Remuneration Act was enacted in:
View solution
ILO Convention 100 was ratified by India in:
View solution
The constitutional directive principle on equal pay for equal work is in:
View solution
Mackinnon Mackenzie v. Audrey D'Costa (1987) is the leading authority on:
View solution
Air India v. Nargesh Meerza (1981) struck down rules requiring air hostesses to retire on:
View solution
Under Section 4(2), in order to comply with the equal-pay duty an employer:
View solution
Section 5 of the Equal Remuneration Act prohibits gender discrimination in:
View solution
Under Section 6, the Advisory Committee must have at least how many women members?
View solution
Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982) held that equal pay for equal work is enforceable through:
View solution
Match the case with its holding:
| (i) | Nargesh Meerza 1981 | (a) | Equal pay enforceable via Articles 14+16 |
| (ii) | Randhir Singh 1982 | (b) | Marriage / pregnancy retirement of air hostesses struck down |
| (iii) | Mackinnon Mackenzie 1987 | (c) | Daily-wage workers entitled to equal pay |
| (iv) | Jagjit Singh 2016 | (d) | Lady stenographers equal pay |
View solution
"Same work or work of a similar nature" under Section 2(h) is judged by:
View solution
Under Section 16, a wage difference not based on sex but on other considerations (such as seniority, qualifications, length of service):
View solution
ILO Convention 111 — Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) — was ratified by India in:
View solution
Under the Code on Wages 2019, the prohibition on remuneration discrimination is:
View solution
State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2016) extended equal pay to:
View solution
A statutory exception to Section 5's non-discrimination rule arises where:
View solution
The Equal Remuneration Act came into force on:
View solution
The Equal Remuneration Act 1976 has been subsumed within:
View solution
The Equal Remuneration Ordinance preceding the 1976 Act was promulgated in:
View solution
Under Section 4(3), where existing rates differ by sex, the employer must pay:
View solution
51.17 Quick Recall
- Equal Remuneration Act 1976 — in force 8 March 1976 (International Women’s Day); gives effect to ILO Convention 100 (1951) — ratified by India on 25 September 1958.
- Constitutional anchor: Article 39(d) (equal pay for equal work) read with Articles 14 and 16.
- Section 2(h) — “same work or work of a similar nature” — judged by skill, effort and responsibility under similar working conditions.
- Section 4 — duty of equal pay; Section 4(2) — employer cannot reduce wages to comply; Section 4(3) — level up to the higher rate.
- Section 5 — non-discrimination in recruitment, promotion, training, transfer — except where employment of women is prohibited by law (e.g., Mines Act Section 46).
- Section 6 — Advisory Committee; at least half women members.
- Section 7 — claims and complaints before authority; appeal within 30 days.
- Section 16 — government may declare no contravention if differential is on non-gender considerations (seniority, qualifications, etc.).
- Penalties (Section 10): 3 months to 1 year, Rs 10,000-20,000 (post-amendment); enhanced under Code on Wages 2019.
-
Landmark cases:
- Air India v. Nargesh Meerza (1981) — marriage/first-pregnancy retirement rules struck down.
- Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982) — equal pay enforceable via Articles 14 + 16 + 39(d).
- Mackinnon Mackenzie v. Audrey D’Costa (1987) — lady stenographers entitled to equal pay.
- State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2016) — temporary / daily-wage workers entitled to equal pay.
- Code on Wages 2019 — subsumes the ER Act; gender-neutral (all genders); universal (all employments); enhanced penalties.
- Companion: ILO C-111 (1958) — Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) — ratified by India 1960.