A section of the former and current workers of a major auto company is protesting and organizing agitation against the carmaker’s labour practices for the last five months. One of their main demands is equal pay for equal work.
Agitating workers are demanding a 40 per cent wage hike and equal rights for contract, temporary, casual workers, apprentices, student trainees, and NEEM trainees, who make up 77 per cent of the workforce across its three plants of the company. The workers have demanded an end to the reliance on temporary workers for regular production across all company plants. They also called for equal pay for equal work and the regularization of temporary employees.
Remuneration Act
Equal Remuneration Act 1976 provides 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 the matter of employment and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
This basic objective of Equal Remuneration Act 1976 has been retained in the newly enacted Code on Wages where this particular feature is incorporated in the Section 3(1) and 3(2).
An explicit mention of the fact that equal wages be paid for equal work irrespective of status of employment would have had a significant impact on the Indian labour market.
In that case, for similar kind of work, wages would be same for all kind of workers, be it regular or contractual or casual. In that scenario, there would be little incentive for employers to engage contract/casual workers in similar activities which is being also done by regular workers since wages that needs to be paid would be statutorily same.
Legal precedents
In the State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) Supreme Court Case no. 148, the Supreme Court held that principle of “equal pay for equal work” is applicable to all temporarily engaged employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual
employees and the like) who are entitled to minimum of the regular pay-scale, on account of their performing the same duties which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis against sanctioned posts.
The Supreme Court in that case further upheld that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ has to be extended to those engaged in ad hoc or contractual work. Subsequently, the Delhi High Court had also asked the central government to file a status report on the implementation of the SC order by departments and ministries.
After the Delhi High Court’s instructions, the DoPT through its office memorandum sent in September 2019 had observed that if the nature of work entrusted to the casual workers and regular employees was the same, the casual workers might be paid at the rate of 1/30th of the pay at the minimum of the relevant pay scale plus dearness allowance for work of eight hours a day.
The advisory further added: “In cases where the work done by a casual worker is different from the work done by a regular employee, the casual worker may be paid only the minimum wages notified as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.” DoPT gave further instructions that people employed on daily-rated casual basis should not be engaged for work of regular nature.
Even though existing wage related labour laws and newly enacted Code on Wages 2019 do not explicitly incorporate the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, judicial pronouncements as cited above uphold this principle.
The writer is a faculty at the Goa Institute of Management and former labour administrator at the Govt. Of West Bengal
