Supreme Court of India
Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. v. Audrey D'Costa
Whether women stenographers paid less than men for the same work were denied equal remuneration.
Decided under an earlier law
The Court decided this case under the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976. Section 69 of the Code on Wages, 2019 repeals the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976. The Court's words are shown below beside the Code provision this library compares them with. This library does not say whether the decision holds good under the Code: compare the two texts.
What the Court decided
Each point is this library's summary, followed by the Court's own words, checked word for word against the Supreme Court's typed copy of the judgment (JUDIS file 8771). The pinpoint gives the page of the Supreme Court Reports and the margin letter (A to H) printed beside the line where the words begin.
Whether jobs are the same or of a similar nature is judged broadly, on the duties actually performed; differences of detail should not defeat a claim to equal pay on trivial grounds.
In deciding whether the work is the same or broadly similar, the Authority should take a broad view; next, in ascertaining whether any differences are of practical importance, the Authority should take an equally broad approach for the very concept of similar work implies differences in details, but these should not defeat a claim for equality on trivial grounds. It should look at the duties actually performed not those theoretically possible.
[1987] 2 S.C.R. 659, at 670 E · open the report at p. 670 A settlement between the union and the management could not justify the lower pay: the Act has effect notwithstanding any award, agreement or contract of service.
provides that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law or in the terms of any award, agreement or contract of service
[1987] 2 S.C.R. 659, at 669 A · open the report at p. 669 The petitioner cannot, therefore, rely upon the settlement arrived at between the parties. The settlement has to yield in favour of the provisions of the Act.
[1987] 2 S.C.R. 659, at 672 F · open the report at p. 672 An employer's inability to pay is no defence: whether the Act applies does not depend on the employer's financial ability to pay equal remuneration.
The applicability of the Act does not depend upon the financial ability of the management to pay equal remuneration as provided by it.
[1987] 2 S.C.R. 659, at 676 E · open the report at p. 676
The earlier provision and the Code
Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, section 4(1)
As quoted in the judgment: [1987] 2 S.C.R. 659, at 669 C · open the report at p. 669
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 in such establishment or employment for performing the same work or work of a similar nature.
Code on Wages, section 3(1)
Prohibition of discrimination on ground of gender In force
(1) There shall be no discrimination in an establishment or any unit thereof among employees on the ground of gender in matters relating to wages by the same employer, in respect of the same work or work of a similar nature done by any employee.
Wording in common: 35% of the words, in the same order.
Wording differs; the decision may not carry over. The Code provision is not worded like the provision the Court interpreted.