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

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

Where men and women are found to perform the same or similar work, paying women lesser remuneration solely due to sex violates section 4(1) of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 and constitutional principles. Settlements between management and employees cannot override statutory mandates of equal pay. The place of work or any internal practice (such as attaching only women as Confidential Stenographers) does not justify pay discrimination. The Court rejected the applicability of the proviso to section 4(3) since no different pay scales existed before the Act; discrimination was caused by inequitable fitment within a common scale. Financial inability of management is not a defence against...

Parties
Petitioner: MACKINNON MACKENZIE & CO. LTD.; Respondent: Audrey D'Costa; Respondent: Respondent No. 2
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
26 March 1987
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (civil) / Civil Appellate Jurisdiction; Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From Bombay High Court
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Equal Remuneration, Sex Discrimination, Employment, Settlement and Pay Scales
Labour Law Constitutional Law Equal Remuneration Sex Discrimination Employment Settlement and Pay Scales

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MACKINNON MACKENZIE & CO. LTD.

Petitioner

Audrey D'Costa

Respondent

Respondent No. 2

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (civil) / Civil Appellate Jurisdiction; Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From Bombay High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether lower remuneration to women workers performing same or similar work as men workers violates section 4(1) of Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 and Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution.
  2. 2 Whether a settlement between management and employees can be a valid ground for pay discrimination between men and women.
  3. 3 Applicability of proviso to section 4(3) of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 to this case.

Ratio Decidendi

Where men and women are found to perform the same or similar work, paying women lesser remuneration solely due to sex violates section 4(1) of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 and constitutional principles. Settlements between management and employees cannot override statutory mandates of equal pay. The place of work or any internal practice (such as attaching only women as Confidential Stenographers) does not justify pay discrimination. The Court rejected the applicability of the proviso to section 4(3) since no different pay scales existed before the Act; discrimination was caused by inequitable fitment within a common scale. Financial inability of management is not a defence against...

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Lady Stenographers to be paid same remuneration as male counterparts for same or similar work, irrespective of sex.
  • Salary and remuneration to be computed as per terms applicable to all male Stenographers.