Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.39 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 7 in The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Minimum Wages Act, 1948
Harbans Lal & Ors vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 1 August, 1989
Even though the right of equal pay for equal work is protected under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the same cannot be enforced if the discrimination is based on the reasonable classification, as held in Harbans Lal and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., (supra) .
Sahu Minerals & Properties Ltd vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Ors on 6 August, 1975
In this connection it is relevant to mention that the issue before the Apex Court in Sahu Minerals Ltd. v. Labour Court, (supra), was whether the Labour Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) could consider whether the workers are entitled to retrenchment compensation payable under Section 25-K or closure compensation payable under Section 25-FFF. It is under such circumstances, the Apex Court has held that the Labour Court, while disposing the claim petition under Section 33-C(2) can also decide whether the compensation payable to the workers is retrenchment compensation or closure compensation, as referred to above. But, the said ratio cannot be applicable automatically to the facts of this case, as Sri Ibrahim Kalifullah contends that the discrimination said to have been made between the petitioners and the workers who are governed under the settlement, dated April 8, 1987, is reasonable in the sense that they were employed by the management when the management was a member of the P.A.T. which is governed under the industry-wise settlement, whereas, the petitioners are employed by the management after resigning from the P.A.T. and are paid the minimum wages as contemplated under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act.
State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Etc. Etc vs G. Sreenivasa Rao & Ors. Etc. Etc on 13 March, 1989
Further, as held in State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. v. G. Srinivasa Rao and Ors., (supra) the reasonable classification based on intelligible criteria is permissible.
Section 10 in The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
Mewa Ram Kanojia vs All India Institute Of Medical Sciences ... on 9 March, 1989
37. The equal pay for equal work is not an abstract doctrine, as held in Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Ors., (supra). The doctrine of equal pay for equal work is applicable only where the employees are equal in every respect, but not when they are denied 'equality based on reasonable classification in as much as equality must be among the equals and unequals cannot claim equality.