Equal Pay for Equal Work: A Constitutional Right in India

Abstract

The principle of “Equal Pay for Equal Work” is an important aspect of equality and social justice in India. It requires employees performing the same or substantially similar work to receive equal remuneration without unjustified discrimination. Although the Constitution of India does not expressly recognise equal pay as an independent Fundamental Right, the Supreme Court has developed the principle through Articles 14 and 16, read with Article 39(d) of the Constitution. Landmark decisions such as Randhir Singh v Union of India, Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co Ltd v Audrey D'Costa and State of Punjab v Jagjit Singh have significantly contributed to the development of this principle. The Code on Wages, 2019 further provides statutory protection against gender-based discrimination in wages. This paper examines the constitutional foundation, judicial development and contemporary significance of equal pay in India.

Keywords: Equal Pay, Article 14, Article 16, Article 39(d), Gender Equality, Constitutional Law, Code on Wages.

---

1. Introduction

Equal remuneration for equal work is an essential element of fairness in employment. In a society committed to equality and social justice, two persons performing substantially similar work should not ordinarily receive unequal wages merely because of their gender or other irrelevant considerations.

The principle of “Equal Pay for Equal Work” has acquired considerable importance in Indian constitutional law. It is particularly significant in relation to gender equality, protection of workers and prevention of economic discrimination.

The Indian Constitution does not expressly declare equal pay for equal work to be a Fundamental Right. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted the principle in connection with the equality guarantees contained in Articles 14 and 16, while also relying upon Article 39(d), which directs the State to secure equal pay for equal work for both men and women.¹

---

2. Meaning of Equal Pay for Equal Work

“Equal Pay for Equal Work” means that employees who perform substantially similar duties and responsibilities, requiring comparable skills, effort and qualifications, should receive equal remuneration.

The principle does not mean that every employee must receive exactly the same salary. A difference in remuneration may be justified where there are genuine differences in qualifications, experience, responsibility, nature of duties, working conditions or other relevant factors.

Therefore, the comparison must be based on the actual nature and quality of work, and not merely on job titles.

---

3. Constitutional Framework

3.1 Article 14 – Equality Before Law

Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.

It prevents arbitrary discrimination and requires persons who are similarly situated to be treated equally. Therefore, unjustified wage discrimination between employees performing substantially similar work may attract the protection of Article 14.²

3.2 Article 16 – Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment

Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity in matters relating to public employment.

The provision is particularly relevant where employees working under the State or its instrumentalities claim unequal treatment in employment and remuneration.

3.3 Article 39(d) – Equal Pay for Equal Work

Article 39(d) directs the State to ensure equal pay for equal work for both men and women.

Article 39 forms part of the Directive Principles of State Policy and is not independently enforceable in the same manner as Fundamental Rights. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has used Article 39(d) to give substantive meaning to the equality guarantees under Articles 14 and 16.³

---

4. Equal Pay: A Constitutional Goal

The Supreme Court clarified the constitutional position in the landmark case of Randhir Singh v Union of India.⁴

The Court observed that the principle of equal pay for equal work is not expressly declared as a Fundamental Right. However, it recognised the principle as a constitutional goal.

The Court read Article 39(d) along with Articles 14 and 16 and held that the Directive Principles could be used in interpreting Fundamental Rights.

This judgment became the foundation for the modern constitutional understanding of equal pay in India.

---

5. Landmark Judicial Decisions

5.1 Randhir Singh v Union of India (1982)

In Randhir Singh, the petitioner was a driver-constable in the Delhi Police who claimed pay parity with drivers performing similar duties in other government departments.

The Supreme Court recognised that unequal pay for substantially similar work could violate the constitutional principle of equality. The Court connected Article 39(d) with Articles 14 and 16.⁵

Significance:
The judgment established the constitutional foundation of the principle of equal pay for equal work.

---

5.2 Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co Ltd v Audrey D'Costa (1987)

In Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co Ltd v Audrey D'Costa, the Supreme Court dealt with discrimination in remuneration between male and female employees.

The case highlighted the importance of preventing gender-based discrimination in wages and strengthened the principle of equal remuneration for men and women performing the same or similar work.⁶

Significance:
The case demonstrates the relationship between equal pay and gender equality.

---

5.3 State of Punjab v Jagjit Singh (2016)

In State of Punjab v Jagjit Singh, the Supreme Court considered claims for pay parity by temporary employees performing duties comparable to regular employees.

The Court held that pay parity depends upon a proper comparison of the duties, responsibilities, qualifications, nature and quality of work. It also clarified that equal pay cannot be claimed merely because two posts have the same designation.⁷

The Court recognised that temporary employees may, in appropriate circumstances, claim parity where they perform substantially the same work as regular employees.

Significance:
The judgment remains an important authority on the application and limitations of the equal-pay principle.

---

6. Equal Pay and Gender Equality

Equal pay has a direct connection with gender justice.

Women have historically faced discrimination in employment and remuneration. The constitutional requirement under Article 39(d) specifically refers to equal pay for both men and women.

The principle ensures that gender should not be used as an unjustified basis for paying different wages when employees perform the same or similar work.

Thus, equal remuneration is not merely an economic issue. It is also an issue of human dignity, equality and social justice.

---

7. Statutory Protection under the Code on Wages, 2019

The principle of equal pay is also supported by labour legislation.

The Code on Wages, 2019 prohibits discrimination on the ground of gender in matters relating to wages for the same work or work of a similar nature. Section 3 also prohibits discrimination on the ground of sex in recruitment for the same or similar work, subject to legally permitted restrictions.⁸

The Code on Wages rationalised and subsumed several earlier wage laws, including the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976.⁹

Therefore, the principle of equal remuneration now forms part of the modern statutory framework governing wages in India.

---

8. What Constitutes “Equal Work”?

The expression “equal work” does not necessarily mean identical work.

Courts generally examine factors such as:

1. Nature of duties;
2. Degree of responsibility;
3. Qualifications required;
4. Skill and experience;
5. Quality and quantity of work;
6. Working conditions;
7. Functional requirements of the post; and
8. Nature and volume of work.

In State of Punjab v Jagjit Singh, the Supreme Court emphasised that posts with the same designation may still have different pay scales where their duties, responsibilities or other relevant characteristics are materially different.¹⁰

Thus, the principle must be applied carefully to avoid treating unequals as equals.

---

9. Limitations of the Principle

Equal pay for equal work is not an automatic right to identical wages.

A claim for pay parity may fail where:

- The nature of work is substantially different;
- The qualifications required are different;
- The level of responsibility is different;
- The working conditions are materially different;
- The employees belong to different establishments with different management or control;
- There are legitimate differences in the applicable service conditions.

Therefore, courts undertake a detailed factual comparison before granting pay parity.¹¹

---

10. Importance of Equal Pay

The principle of equal pay is important for several reasons.

10.1 Promotes Equality

It prevents arbitrary wage discrimination and strengthens the constitutional commitment to equality.

10.2 Protects Women Workers

It provides legal support against gender-based wage discrimination.

10.3 Promotes Social Justice

Fair wages help reduce economic inequality and exploitation.

10.4 Protects the Dignity of Labour

Remuneration is closely connected with the dignity and economic security of workers.

10.5 Strengthens Constitutional Values

Equal pay gives practical effect to the constitutional values of equality, justice and non-discrimination.

---

11. Challenges in Implementation

Despite constitutional and statutory protection, achieving complete wage equality remains challenging.

One major difficulty is determining whether two categories of employees actually perform “equal” or “similar” work. Differences in job responsibilities, qualifications and working conditions can make comparisons difficult.

Another challenge is that workers may not always be aware of their legal rights or may face practical difficulties in challenging discriminatory remuneration.

Effective implementation therefore requires proper enforcement of labour laws, awareness among workers and transparent wage structures.

---

12. Conclusion

The principle of “Equal Pay for Equal Work” occupies an important position in Indian constitutional and labour law.

Although it is not expressly declared as an independent Fundamental Right, the Supreme Court has recognised it as a constitutional goal and has connected it with the guarantees of equality under Articles 14 and 16, read with Article 39(d).¹²

The decisions in Randhir Singh v Union of India, Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co Ltd v Audrey D'Costa and State of Punjab v Jagjit Singh have significantly developed the principle.

The Code on Wages, 2019 further strengthens protection against gender-based wage discrimination.

Ultimately, equal pay is not simply about receiving the same amount of money. It represents a broader constitutional commitment to equality, dignity, fairness and social justice. A truly equal workplace can exist only when remuneration is determined by the nature and value of work rather than by gender or other irrelevant considerations.

---

Footnotes

1. Constitution of India, arts 14, 16 and 39(d); Randhir Singh v Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618.

2. Constitution of India, art 14.

3. Constitution of India, art 39(d); Randhir Singh v Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618.

4. Randhir Singh v Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618.

5. Ibid. The Supreme Court described equal pay for equal work as a constitutional goal and linked Article 39(d) with Articles 14 and 16.

6. Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co Ltd v Audrey D'Costa, (1987) 2 SCC 469.

7. State of Punjab v Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148.

8. Code on Wages, 2019, s 3.

9. Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India, “New Wage Code” (25 July 2022). The Code on Wages rationalised and subsumed the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, among other wage laws.

10. State of Punjab v Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148.

11. Ibid. The Supreme Court identified several circumstances in which pay parity cannot be claimed, including materially different duties, qualifications, responsibilities and establishments.

12. Randhir Singh v Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618.

---

Bibliography

Books and Legal Materials

1. Constitution of India, 1950.
2. Code on Wages, 2019.
3. Equal Remuneration Act, 1976.
4. Randhir Singh v Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618.
5. Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co Ltd v Audrey D'Costa, (1987) 2 SCC 469.
6. State of Punjab v Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC148

  Author: Diya un
Institution: ABBS School of Law
Profile: Law Student
Area of Interest: Constitutional Rights and Legal Analysis