Equal remuneration for substantially similar work prevails over settlements, pay-scale arrangements, and claims of financial difficulty.

Men and women employees doing the same or substantially similar work are entitled to equal remuneration under Article 39(d) and the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976. On a practical comparison of actual duties, confidential lady stenographers were treated as performing work materially indistinguishable from male stenographers, so attachment to senior executives and confidential functions did not justify lower pay. The Act prevails over any inconsistent settlement or pay arrangement, and the proviso to section 4(3) could not be used to sustain sex-based disparity in fitment within a common scale. Financial difficulty was not accepted as a defence to unequal remuneration.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the confidential lady stenographers were performing the same work or work of a similar nature as the male stenographers so as to attract the statutory right to equal remuneration; (ii) whether the 1975 settlement and the common pay-scale arrangement, including the proviso to section 4(3), could justify the lower remuneration paid to the lady stenographers.

Issue (i): whether the confidential lady stenographers were performing the same work or work of a similar nature as the male stenographers so as to attract the statutory right to equal remuneration.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India and sections 2(h) and 4(1) of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 requires a broad, practical comparison of actual duties performed. The relevant authorities had found, on the evidence, that the lady stenographers and male stenographers were doing substantially identical work. The fact that the lady stenographers were attached to senior executives and were entrusted with confidential duties did not make their work materially different for the purpose of the Act, nor could the employer rely on the form of deployment to deny equal pay where the work remained substantially the same.

Conclusion: The lady stenographers were held to be doing the same work or work of a similar nature, and the claim for equal remuneration was maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether the 1975 settlement and the common pay-scale arrangement, including the proviso to section 4(3), could justify the lower remuneration paid to the lady stenographers.

Analysis: Section 3 of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 gives the Act overriding effect over inconsistent settlements, awards, agreements, or contracts. The settlement could not therefore defeat the statutory mandate against sex-based discrimination in remuneration. The Court further held that section 4(3) did not assist the employer because the discrimination arose in the fitment of women employees within a common pay scale, not from different pre-existing rates for men and women doing the same work. The proviso to section 4(3) could not be invoked independently of that provision. Financial difficulty of the management also afforded no defence to a contravention of section 4(1).

Conclusion: The settlement and the common pay-scale arrangement did not justify the lower pay, and the employer was bound to pay equal remuneration without regard to financial inconvenience.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was upheld, and the employer's challenge to the grant of equal remuneration relief failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where men and women employees perform the same or substantially similar work, any pay disparity based on sex is impermissible, and no settlement, contractual arrangement, or financial incapacity can override the statutory mandate of equal remuneration.

---