by Paula Määttä

VIII. India

C. Measures for determining and promoting pay equality

1. Permitted grounds for wage differentials

The Equal Remuneration Act allows differences in wages for the same work or work of a similar nature if the wage difference is due to a genuine material difference, and is not based on sex.

2. Instruments used to promote equality

Job evaluation

In India, job evaluation is seldom used for evaluating and comparing different jobs between male employees and female employees. Most users of job evaluation schemes are to be found in modern sectors such as the steel industry and aviation. Indian conditions do not favour job evaluation in regard to wages. Wages rarely depend primarily on job content, but they are usually influenced by seniority and bargaining power. Trade unions do not favour job evaluation, because it is costly. (ILO 1986(a), 125-126.)

3. Scope of comparison

Scope of comparison is limited to men and women performing the same work or work of a similar nature for the same employer. The comparison may be done within an establishment, but not across establishments.

The Supreme Court decision in the case of Mackinnon Mackenzie and Company v DCosta ((1987) 2 SCC 469) indicates that the scope of the Equal Remuneration Act in relation to work comparison is more limited than the principle set out in the Conventions. The Supreme Court stated that discrimination arose only where men and women doing the same or a similar kind of work were paid differently. The Court distinguished this situation from that where men and women carried out different kinds of work. It held that there can not be any discrimination on the grounds of sex in respect of the work done by men which women may not be able to undertake, such as loading, unloading, carrying and lifting heavy things.