NDLI: Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. Vs. Audrey Dcosta & Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Equal Remuneration Act
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India, Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 (25 of 1976)
Case Type	Special Leave Petition
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Petition Dismissed
Headnote	Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14 and 39(d)-Equal remuneration-Liability to pay irrespective of sex-Necessity for. Equal Remuneration Act, 1976-Ss. 2(h), 4(1) and 7-Equal work-'Same work or work of similar nature'-Considerations for 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 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 )-Applicability 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(1) 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. 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 petitioner-company, were terminated on June 13, 1977, she instituted a petition before the Authority appointed under sub-s. (1) of s. 7 of the Equal Remuneration Act 1976 complaining that during the period of her employment, after the act came into force, she was being paid remuneration at the rates less favourable than those paid to the Stenographers of the male sex in the petitioner's establishment for performing the same or similar work and claimed that she was entitled to recover the difference between the remuneration paid to her and the male Stenographers. 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) of s. 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 discrimination 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 breach of s. 4 as no discrimination on the ground of sex has been made. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal of Respondent No. 1 holding that there was clear discrimination between the male Stenographers and the female Stenographers and the petitioner had committed the breach of the provisions of the Act and directed the petitioner to make the payment of the difference between the basic salary and dearness 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 Provident Fund. In the petition under Article 226 the Learned Single Judge 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.
Judge	Honble Mr. Justice E.S. Venkataramiah
Neutral Citation	1987 INSC 81
Petitioner	Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd.
Respondent	Audrey Dcosta & Anr.
SCR	[1987] 2 S.C.R. 659
Judgement Date	1987-03-26
Case Number	1265

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. Vs. Audrey Dcosta & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

R.m. Investment and Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Boeing Co. and Anr.

Mackinon Mackenzie & Company Ltd Vs. Mackinnon Employees Union

Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ibrahim Mahommed Issak

Continental Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Bhagwani and Ors.

Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa

United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Indiro Devi & Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Kali and Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Savitri Devi and Ors.

Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. Vs. Audrey Dcosta & Anr.

Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. Vs. Audrey Dcosta & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

R.m. Investment and Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Boeing Co. and Anr.

Mackinon Mackenzie & Company Ltd Vs. Mackinnon Employees Union

Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ibrahim Mahommed Issak

Continental Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Bhagwani and Ors.

Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa

United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Indiro Devi & Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Kali and Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Savitri Devi and Ors.

Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. Vs. Audrey Dcosta & Anr.