Promoting Gender Equality in the Workplace: The Equal Remuneration Act of 1976

In 1976, the Indian Parliament passed a law that was, at the time, a significant statement of intent: women doing the same work as men must be paid the same. The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 was not just about wages – it was about recognising that gender cannot be a legitimate basis for paying someone less. Nearly five decades later, the law’s principles remain as relevant as ever, even as the gender pay gap continues to persist across industries. Understanding what this Act says, how it works, and where it falls short is essential for anyone studying labour law in India.

Why the Act was enacted
Core provisions of the Act
Equal pay for the same or similar work
Non-discrimination in recruitment and service conditions
Advisory committees
Employer obligations: maintaining records
Enforcement mechanism
Penalties for non-compliance
Constitutional and judicial backing
The transition to the Code on Wages, 2019
Enforcement challenges and ground realities
What needs to change

Why the Act was enacted

Before 1976, there was no dedicated central legislation that specifically prohibited employers from paying women less than men for the same work. Wage discrimination was common across both organised and unorganised sectors. India had ratified the ILO’s Equal Remuneration Convention (No. 100) in 1958, which required member states to guarantee equal remuneration for work of equal value regardless of gender. Domestic legislation had not caught up with this commitment. The government also received recommendations from the Committee on the Status of Women in India, which documented widespread pay disparities. The Equal Remuneration Act was the legislative response – enacted on February 11, 1976, and brought into force from March 8, 1976.

The Act’s stated objective is to provide for the payment of equal remuneration to men and women workers and for the prevention of discrimination on the ground of sex against women in matters of employment. It applies across the whole of India – covering government institutions, public sector undertakings, private companies, and the unorganised sector.

Core provisions of the Act

Equal pay for the same or similar work

The central obligation under the Act is straightforward: no employer can pay a worker at a rate less favourable than that paid to a worker of the opposite sex for the same work or work of a similar nature. The term “same work or work of a similar nature” is defined as work which, when performed under similar conditions by a man or a woman, requires the same skill, effort, and responsibility. Minor differences in skill or responsibility that are not significant to the employment do not justify different pay.

Importantly, the Act prohibits employers from reducing the remuneration of any existing worker in order to comply with its provisions. This means an employer cannot achieve parity by cutting a man’s pay to match a woman’s lower pay – instead, the lower-paid worker must be brought up to the higher rate. The Act also specifies that where pay was unequal before commencement, the higher of the two rates must apply going forward.

Non-discrimination in recruitment and service conditions

The Act goes beyond wages. No discrimination against women is permitted at the time of recruitment. This protection extends to post-recruitment conditions as well – promotions, training, and transfers cannot be conducted in a discriminatory manner on the basis of gender. The only exceptions are situations where the employment of women is specifically prohibited or restricted under another law.

One important carve-out in the Act protects existing reservation policies: the non-discrimination mandate does not affect priority or reservation given to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, ex-servicemen, retrenched employees, or other specified categories in recruitment matters.

Advisory committees

The Act provides for the constitution of Advisory Committees at both the central and state levels. A Central Advisory Committee has been set up to advise the government on providing increasing employment opportunities for women and to review steps taken for effective implementation of the Act. Each advisory committee must have at least ten members, with at least half being women. These committees advise on how to expand women’s participation in the workforce and ensure the Act’s objectives are being met in practice.

Employer obligations: maintaining records

Every employer covered by the Act must maintain registers and documents relating to workers employed, the work performed, and the remuneration paid. This requirement promotes transparency and accountability in remuneration practices, and the prescribed register is known as Form D. Labour enforcement officers are authorised to inspect these records during their visits.

Enforcement mechanism

The Act sets up a two-tier enforcement structure divided between the central and state governments. In the central sphere, enforcement is entrusted to the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), who heads the Central Industrial Relations Machinery. Labour Enforcement Officers have been appointed as Inspectors to investigate compliance by employers. This central jurisdiction covers industries such as railways, banks, mines, major ports, oil fields, and central government establishments.

For all other employment, enforcement rests with state governments through their respective Labour Departments. Inspectors have the power to enter premises, examine registers and documents, and take evidence from any person. If a violation is found, the appointed authority can direct the employer to pay the wage difference owed to the employee. Appeals against such orders are allowed within 30 days, extendable to 60 days in appropriate cases.

Penalties for non-compliance

Employers who fail to maintain required registers can face simple imprisonment of up to one month, a fine of up to ₹10,000, or both. For more serious violations – such as making discriminatory recruitments or paying unequal wages – the fine ranges from ₹10,000 to ₹20,000, with imprisonment between three months and one year. Repeat offenders face higher penalties.

Constitutional and judicial backing

The Act’s principles are firmly rooted in the Constitution. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, and Article 16 ensures equality of opportunity in public employment. Article 39(d), a Directive Principle of State Policy, specifically directs the state to secure equal pay for equal work for both men and women.

Courts have reinforced these principles over the years. In Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982), the Supreme Court held that equal pay for equal work is a constitutional right under Articles 14 and 16, enforceable through Article 32. In Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. v. Audrey D’Costa (1987), the Supreme Court ruled in favour of female stenographers who were being paid less than their male counterparts doing the same work, making clear that gender alone cannot justify wage differences for similar roles. Courts have also clarified that “same work” does not mean identical work – it means work of similar type, skill, effort, and responsibility.

The transition to the Code on Wages, 2019

The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 has since been repealed and its provisions absorbed into the Code on Wages, 2019, which consolidates four labour laws into one framework. Section 3 of the Code explicitly prohibits gender-based discrimination in wages and recruitment for the same or similar work. The Code applies to both organised and unorganised sectors and extends the equal pay principle to all employees regardless of industry or wage bracket. It also incorporates work experience as an additional factor alongside skill, effort, and responsibility when determining comparable work – a refinement over the original Act’s language.

Enforcement challenges and ground realities

Despite a clear legal framework, the gender pay gap in India remains stubbornly persistent. According to the Global Gender Gap Report 2023, India ranks 127th out of 148 countries in terms of gender pay parity. A survey by DBS Bank India (in collaboration with CRISIL) found that the perceived gender pay gap among salaried women in metropolitan cities stands at around 23 per cent.

Several factors make enforcement difficult in practice. First, the definition of “similar work” is not always straightforward – the vagueness in the definition allows employers to justify different wages for men and women by making superficial changes to job descriptions. Second, over 60% of rural women work in informal sectors where enforcement of wage laws is minimal and formal contracts are rare. Women in these settings are particularly vulnerable to wage exploitation precisely because there are no written records and no union representation. Third, occupational segregation – the concentration of women in traditionally low-paying roles like caregiving, agriculture, and textiles – means that wage comparisons across genders often cannot be made directly, allowing structural inequality to persist even within the letter of the law.

Cultural norms compound these legal gaps. Entrenched societal attitudes that treat women’s work as secondary persist despite legislative progress, and limited awareness among women workers about their rights under the law means that many violations go unreported. Labour inspector capacity is also limited, particularly in smaller establishments and rural areas.

What needs to change

Legal reform alone is insufficient if the infrastructure for enforcement does not keep pace. Experts and legal scholars have called for greater pay transparency – mandatory disclosure of wage structures so that employees can identify disparities. Aligning Indian law with the concept of “equal pay for work of equal value” – rather than just equal pay for the same work – would bring it in line with international standards and close loopholes that currently allow wage gaps to persist across gender-segregated roles. Mandatory wage audits, stronger penalties for non-compliance, and worker education programmes, particularly in rural and informal settings, are all widely recommended steps.

The principle embedded in the Equal Remuneration Act – that gender is not a valid basis for paying someone less – is not disputed. What remains unfinished is the work of making that principle a consistent reality for the millions of women across India who are still paid less for work of equal worth.

What do you think? If the law already prohibits gender-based wage discrimination, why do you think the pay gap continues to be significant in India’s informal sector – and what would meaningful enforcement actually look like in practice? Should India move towards a broader principle of “equal pay for work of equal value” rather than limiting the mandate to “same or similar work”?

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 0 / 5. Vote count: 0

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

References

PDF 📄

Table of Contents

Why the Act was enacted 🔗

Core provisions of the Act 🔗

Equal pay for the same or similar work 🔗

Non-discrimination in recruitment and service conditions 🔗

Advisory committees 🔗

Employer obligations: maintaining records 🔗

Enforcement mechanism 🔗

Penalties for non-compliance 🔗

Constitutional and judicial backing 🔗

The transition to the Code on Wages, 2019 🔗

Enforcement challenges and ground realities 🔗

What needs to change 🔗