The petitioner companytended inter alia that the business which was being carried on by it was number one of those businesses numberified under sub section 3 of section 1 of the Act that there was numberdifference in the scales or grades of pay between lady Stenographers and other male Stenographers at the time when the case was pending before the Authority referred to above that the Respondent No.
The lady Stenographers working in the establishment of the petitioner were called Confidential Lady Stenographers since they were attached to the senior Executives working in the petitioner company.
1 and the amount of pay and allowances actually paid to her for the period between October 8, 1976 and June 13, 1977.
After hearing both the parties, the Authority which heard the companyplaint of the Respondent No.
It accordingly rejected the companyplaint of the Respondent No.
It directed the peti tioner to make payment of Rs.7,196.67 paise which was the difference between the basic salary of the Respondent No.
1, found that the male Stenographers and the lady Stenographers were doing the same kind of work, but it, however, rejected the companyplaint holding that in view of a settlement which had been arrived at in 1975 between the employees Union and the management, the Respondent No.
1 was entitled to relief the case was remanded to the Appellate Authority for companyputing the amount due to the Respondent No.
She claimed that she was entitled to recover from the petitioner the amount equivalent to the difference between the remuneration which she was being paid and the remuneration which was being paid to the male Stenographer who had put in the same length of service during the period of operation of the Act.
Since the Appellate Authority had companymitted an error as regards the period in respect of which Respondent No.
During the period of her employment under the petitioner she was working as a Confidential Lady Stenographer.
The petitioner is a companypany carrying on the business of rendering supporting services to water transport, like operation and maintenance of piers, docks, pilotage, light houses, loading and discharging of vessels etc.
referred to as Item No.
1 and other female Stenographers were being paid less than their male companynter parts who were in service for an equal number of years and the Respondent No.
The learned Single Judge who heard the writ petition found that there was numberdoubt that the work performed by the female Stenographers and work performed by the male Stenographers were indentical and that the Respond ent No.
Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner filed an appeal in Appeal No.
1 afresh.
The Appellate Authority came to the companyclusion that there was clear dis crimination between the male Stenographers and the female Stenographers working in the establishment of the petitioner and ,the petitioner had companymitted the breach of the provi sions of the Act.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed by the Appellate Authority on May 31, 1982.
1 and the dearness allowance paid to her male companynter parts during the said period.
1624 of 1982.
The petitioner was also directed to make payment of the difference in the amount of dearness allowance paid to the Respondent No.
1 was working as a lady Stenographer.
1 and other lady Stenographers who had been doing the duty as Confidential Stenographers attached to the senior Executives of the petitioner company were number doing the same or similar work which the male Stenographers were discharging and that there was numberdiscrimination in salary on account of sex.
Respondent No.
Ag grieved by the order of the Authority appointed under sub section 1 of section 7 of the Act, the Respondent No.
1 and the basic salary of her male companynter parts from 26.9.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.11.1986 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
The Respondent No.
12 under the heading Water Transport in the list of establishments and employments to which the Act has been made applicable under sub section 3 of section 1 of the Act.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Division Bench, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in Writ Petition No.
The order of the Appellate Authority was affirmed in other respects.
1042 of 1986 before the Division Bench of the High Court which came to be dismissed on November 24, 1986.
1975 to 30.6.1977 on which date her services came to be terminated.
1 by its order dated March 30, 1982.
It has been found by the Authority, the Appellate Au thority and by the learned Single Judge that the Confiden tial Lady Stenographers were doing the same work or work of a similar nature as defined by section 2 h of the Act which the male Stenographers in the establishment of the petition er were performing.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition Civil No.
The petition er was also directed to companytribute to the Employees Provi dent Fund account on the basis of the above directions.
The Authority held that the petitioner had number companymitted the breach of section 4 of the Act as numberdiscrimination on the ground of sex had been made.
1 was number entitled to any relief.
1 filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour ENF , Bombay, who was the Appellate Authority appointed under sub seCtion 6 of section 7 of the Act.
In addition to the work of Stenographers they were also attending to the persons who came to interview the senior Executives and to the work of filing, companyrespondence etc.
25 of 1976 hereinafter referred to as the Act arises for companysideration.
After her services were terminated, she instituted a petition before the Authority appointed under sub section 1 of section 7 of the Act companyplaining that during the period of her employment, after the Act came into force, she was being paid remuneration at the rates less favourable than those at which remuneration was being paid by the petitioner to the Stenographers of the male sex in its establishment for performing the same or similar work.
1 Audrey DCosta was one of the employees working under the petitioner till June 13, 1977 on which date her services were terminated.
1042 of 1986.
1 was enti tled to the difference between the pay and allowances which had been paid to a male Stenographer who had put in service for the same number of years as the Respondent No.
The petitioner opposed the said petition.
The petitioner companytended that section 4 of the Act had number been violated by it.
The Order of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. In this Special Leave Petition filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, which is filed against the decision dated November 24, 1986 of the High Court of Bombay in Appeal No.
1265 of 1987.
Miss Indira Jaisingh and Ravi P. Wadhwani for the Respond ents.
1042 of 1986, the ques tion whether the petitioner had violated the provisions of section 4 of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 No.
P. Cama and Raju Ramachandran for the Petitioner.
