1987 (3) TMI 517 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Section 4 of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976.
2. Applicability of the Act to the petitioner's business.
3. Whether the work performed by male and female stenographers was the same or similar.
4. Discrimination in pay based on sex.
5. Impact of the 1975 settlement on the remuneration of female stenographers.
6. Financial ability of the management to comply with the Act.

Summary:

1. Violation of Section 4 of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976:
The core issue was whether the petitioner violated Section 4 of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 by paying female stenographers less than their male counterparts for the same or similar work. The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the lower authorities and the High Court that the petitioner had indeed violated Section 4 of the Act by paying female stenographers less than male stenographers for the same work.

2. Applicability of the Act to the Petitioner's Business:
The petitioner contended that their business was not covered under the establishments listed in sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act. However, it was established that the petitioner's business fell under "Water Transport" and was therefore subject to the Act.

3. Whether the Work Performed by Male and Female Stenographers was the Same or Similar:
The Authority, the Appellate Authority, and the High Court all found that the work performed by male and female stenographers was the same or similar. The female stenographers were designated as "Confidential Lady Stenographers" and performed tasks identical to their male counterparts.

4. Discrimination in Pay Based on Sex:
The Court noted that the female stenographers were paid less than male stenographers despite performing the same work, which constituted discrimination based on sex. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the difference in pay was justified by the 1975 settlement, stating that Section 3 of the Act overrides any inconsistent agreements or settlements.

5. Impact of the 1975 Settlement on the Remuneration of Female Stenographers:
The 1975 settlement had reduced the basic salary of female stenographers while increasing their dearness allowance, resulting in a lower total remuneration compared to male stenographers. The Court held that this settlement could not justify the discriminatory pay structure as it was inconsistent with the provisions of the Act.

6. Financial Ability of the Management to Comply with the Act:
The petitioner argued that their financial position made it difficult to pay equal remuneration. The Court dismissed this argument, stating that the Act does not permit discrimination in pay based on the financial ability of the employer.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the High Court's judgment that the petitioner had violated Section 4 of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976. The Court emphasized that the Act mandates equal pay for equal work regardless of the employer's financial condition and any pre-existing settlements. The petitioner's financial difficulties did not justify non-compliance with the Act.