AIR 1993 SUPREME COURT 286 ::1992 AIR SCW 3142 ::1992 LAB. I. C. 2418 ::(1992) 3 ComLJ 211 ::1992 (2) CurLR 942 ::(1992) 65 FacLR 991 ::1993 (1) SCC 539 ::1993 SCC (L&S) 221 ::(1993) 1 LabLJ 490 ::1993 (23) ATC 657 ::(1993) 2 ServLJ 91 ::(1993) 82 FJR 1 ::(1993) 1 Lab LN 210 ::(1992) Jab LJ 721 ::1993 (1) SCT 138 ::(1993) 1 Orissa LR 448 ::(1992) 4 SCR 904 (SC) ::1992 (5) ServLR 643 ::(1992) 3 SCJ 371 ::(1992) 5 JT 683 (SC)

Supreme Court Of India

Hon'ble Judge(s): Kuldip Singh, N. M. Kasliwal, B. P. Jeevan Reddy , JJJ

Constitution of India , Art.14, Art.16(1), Art.39(d)— Equal pay for equal work - Rule implicit in Arts. 14 and 16(1)- Enforceable in Court of Law - Rule not mechanical rule - Complaint of infraction of rule- Concept of reasonable classification and other rules evolved with respect to Arts. 14 and 16 come into play - Similarity of skill, effort and @page-SC287responsibility have to be proved- Burden is on one complaining of discrimination. Equal Remuneration Act (25 of 1976) , S.2(G)— Equal pay for equal work, it is self-evident, is implicit in the doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14, it flows from it. Because clause (d) Article 39 spoke of 'equal pay for equal work for both men and women' it did not cease to be a part of Art. 14. To say that the said rule having been stated as a directive principle of State policy is not enforceable in a Court of Law is to indulge in sophistry. Parts IV and III of the Constitution are not supposed to be exclusionary of each other. The rule is as much a part of Article 14 as it is clause (1) of Art. 16. Equality of opportunity guaranteed by Article 16(1) necessarily means and involves equal pay for equal work. It means equally that it is neither a mechanical rule nor does it mean geometrical equality. The concept of reasonable classification and all other rules evoked with respect to Articles 14 and ....