Is Equal Pay for Equal Work a Fundamental Right in India?
🔍 CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS
Though the Constitution of India does not specifically use the phrase "Equal Pay for Equal Work" in the Fundamental Rights chapter, it is recognized in the following:
🟠 Directive Principles of State Policy (Non-Enforceable in Court):
Article 39(d) (Part IV):
"The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women."
▪ This is a Directive Principle, meaning it is not enforceable by courts, but it provides guiding principles for governance.
🟢 Fundamental Rights (Enforceable):
Article 14: "The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India."
Article 16(1): "There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State."
The Supreme Court has interpreted these articles to include "Equal Pay for Equal Work" as an enforceable right when discriminatory pay violates equality.
⚖️ IMPORTANT CASE LAWS
1. Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982)
Citation: AIR 1982 SC 879
🔹 Facts:
Randhir Singh, a driver in the Delhi Police Force, claimed he should be paid the same salary as drivers in other government departments who did similar work.
🔹 Held:
The Supreme Court held that:
Though "Equal Pay for Equal Work" is part of Directive Principles, it is capable of being enforced through Article 14.
The principle is not abstract but a concrete right under Equality before Law.
Discrimination in pay among government employees doing similar work was held to be unconstitutional.
✅ Significance:
This was the first case to recognize Equal Pay for Equal Work as a Fundamental Right enforceable through Articles 14 and 16.
2. D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983)
Citation: AIR 1983 SC 130
Concerned pension benefits for government employees.
Court emphasized economic justice and non-discrimination under Article 14.
Although not directly about pay, it reinforced the idea of equal treatment of similarly situated persons in service matters.
3. Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences (1989)
Citation: AIR 1989 SC 1256
The Court held that equal pay cannot be claimed just by showing similarity in designation or work title.
There must be complete parity in duties, responsibilities, and qualifications.
Equal Pay for Equal Work applies only when there is substantial equality in all relevant factors.
4. State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2016)
Citation: AIR 2017 SC 162
🔹 Facts:
Temporary/contractual employees were being paid less than regular employees for doing identical work.
🔹 Held:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the employees and held that temporary workers cannot be discriminated against in pay if the nature and volume of work are the same.
The principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" was reaffirmed as flowing from Article 14.
✅ Significance:
Strongly reiterated that employment status cannot justify pay discrimination where the work is identical.
🏛️ SUMMARY TABLE
| Legal Basis | Principle |
|---|---|
| Article 39(d) | Directive Principle advocating equal pay |
| Article 14 & 16 | Enforced by Supreme Court to ensure equality in pay for equal work |
| Randhir Singh (1982) | First recognition as a Fundamental Right |
| Jagjit Singh (2016) | Reaffirmed for temporary/contractual workers |
| Mewa Ram (1989) | Conditions for applicability clarified |
✅ FINAL CONCLUSION
🔹 While "Equal Pay for Equal Work" is not expressly mentioned as a Fundamental Right in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has read it into the right to equality under Articles 14 and 16.
🔹 Therefore, it is enforceable by courts when there is unjustified discrimination in pay for similar work, especially in public employment.
🔹 However, for this principle to apply, the work, responsibilities, and qualifications must be substantially similar. Mere similarity in job title is not enough.
RELATED Blog
0 comments