Mackinnon Mackenzie vs. Audrey D’Costa and Another, (1987) 2 SCC 469 (India)

The respondent was a confidential lady stenographer in the petitioner company. She contends that during her employment and despite the Equal Remuneration Act coming into force, she was paid remuneration at lower rates than those paid to male stenographers in the company, performing the same or similar work. She thus claimed that she was entitled to recover the difference between the remuneration paid to her and the male stenographers. Ruling in favor of the petitioner, the court interpreted national legislation in conjunction with the International Labour Organization Convention concerning Equal Remuneration for Men and Women Workers for Work of Equal Value, to which India is a party. The Convention provides that each member shall ensure the application to all workers of the principle of equal remuneration for men and women workers. The court further considered European jurisprudential practice. The court found that the absence of a male employee in the same job in the company is irrelevant since the principle of remuneration predisposes that the same level of pay be guaranteed not only to persons performing identical jobs but also to persons performing work of equal value.