MACKINNON MACKENZIE & CO. LTD. versus AUDREY DCOSTA & ANR.

Citation: [1987] 2 S.C.R. 659 · Decided: 26-03-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
MACKINNON MACKENZIE & CO. LTD. 
A 
v. 
AUDREY D'COSTA & ANR. 
MARCH 26, 1987 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND M.M. DUTT, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14 and 39(d)-Equal 
remuneration-Liability to pay i"espective of sex-Necessity for. 
Equal Remuneration Act, 1976-Ss. 2(h), 4(1) and 7-Equal 
work-'Same work or work of similar nature'-Co~iderations for C 
determination of-Men and women workers-Performing same or 
similar nature of work-Whether lower remuneration to women 
workers discriminatory on ground of sex and violative of s. 4( 1). 
Equal Remuneration Act, 1976-Ss. 2(g), 3 and 4( 1)-Equal 
Pay-Settlement between management and employees-Whether a valid D 
. ground for discriminating in payment of remuneration between men and 
women workers performing same or similar nature of work. 
Equal Remuneration Act, 1976-Proviso to s. 4(3 )-Applica-
bility of-Settlement before commencement of Act-Provides common 
pay scale for men as well as women workers-After implementation of E 
Act-Women workers given lessor remuneration-Whether s. 4( J) or 
proviso to s. 4(3) would apply-
Equal Remuneration Act, 1976-Ss. 3 and 4--Applicability of the 
Act-Whether depends upon the financial ability of the management to 
pay equal.remuneration. 
F 
Statute Law-Proviso-Scope of-Cannot travel beyond the 
section. 
After the services of the respondent No_ 1, who was working as a 
' 
Confidential Lady Stenographer with the petltioner-eompany, were G 
terminated on Jone 13, 1977, she instituted a petition before the Au-
thority appointed nDller snb-s_ (1) of s. 7 of the Equal Remuneration 
. 
,~-.J 
Ad, 1976 complaining that dnring the period of her employment, after 
Che Ad came into force, she was being paid remuneration at the rates 
~ · ' less favoumble thaJt tbooe paid to the Stenographers of lhe male seJ< in 
, the petiaione:r's establishment for performing the same or similar wortl H 
659 
660 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] 2 S.C.R. 
A and claimed that she was entitled to recover the difference between the 
remuneration paid to her and the male Stenographers. 
B 
c 
The petitioner opposed the petition contending, inter alia, that the 
business carried on by it was not one of those businesses notified under 
sub-s. (3) ors. 1 or the Act; that there was no difference in the scales or 
grades or pay between lady Stenographers and male Stenographers; 
that the respondent No. 1 and other lady Stenographers who had been 
doing the duty as Confidential Stenographers attached to the Senior 
Executives were not doing the same or similar work which the male 
Stenographers were discharging; and that since there was no discrimi-
nation in salary on account of sex s.4 of the Act had not been violated. 
The Authority found that the male Stenographers and the lady 
Stenographers were doing the same kind of work, but rejected the 
complaint holding that in view of a settlement arrived at between the 
employee's Union and the management the respondent No. 1 was not 
entitled to any relief and that the petitioner had not committed the 
D breach of s. 4 as no discrimination on the ground of sex has been made. 
The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal of Respondent No. l 
holding that there was clear discrimination between the male Steno-
graphers and the female Stenographers and the petitioner had commit-
ted the breach of the provisions of the Act and directed the petitioner to 
E make the payment of the dilJerence between the basic salary and dear-
ness allowances paid to respondent No. 1 and her male counter parts 
from 26.9.1975 to 30.6.1977 and to contribute to the Employees Provi-
dent Fund. 
Y• 
-
In the petition under Article 226 the Learned Single Judge 
F 
affirmed the order of the Appellate Authority but remanded the case 
_)./ 
for computing the amount due to the respondent No. 1 afresh. The 
Division Bench dismissed the further appeal. 
Dismissing the Petition, 
G 
HELD: 1. To implement Art. 39(d) of the Constitution of India 
and Equal Remuneration Convention, I951 (adopted by International 
Labour Organisation), the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 came to be 
enacted providing for the payment or equal remuneration to men and 
women workers and for the prevention or discrimination on the ground 
or sex against women in the matter or employment and for matters 
H connected therewith or incidental thereto. In so far as the establishment 
~-
- . 
MACKINNON MACKENZIE & CO. v. AUDREY 
661 
of the petitioner was concerned, the Act cam

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.