Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. Ltd. v Audrey D'Costa

Facts

• Audrey D'Costa worked as a stenographer, given the designation "confidential lady stenographer," and was paid at a lower rate than male stenographers in the same establishment who performed essentially the same stenographic duties
• The employer sought to justify the pay disparity on the basis that the designations and job classifications were different, even though the substance of the work performed was largely the same

Issue

1. Under the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, how should "same or similar work" be determined: by reference to the formal job title/designation, or by reference to the actual nature and substance of the duties performed.

Held

• The Supreme Court held that the correct test under the Equal Remuneration Act is a functional test: courts and tribunals must examine the actual nature of the work performed, the skill, effort, and responsibility genuinely required, rather than being bound by the formal designation or job title assigned by the employer
• Since the stenographic work performed by the petitioner was found to be substantially similar to that performed by her male counterparts, the differential pay based merely on a different designation ("confidential lady stenographer" versus "stenographer") could not be justified
• Employers cannot evade the equal remuneration mandate by creating artificial designations or job classifications that mask what is, in substance, the same work being performed by men and women
• The Court directed that the petitioner be paid on par with her male counterparts performing the same substantive work

Ratio Decidendi

The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 requires equal pay where men and women perform "same or similar work," determined by a functional assessment of the actual nature, skill, and responsibility of the work performed, not by reliance on formal job titles or designations that an employer may use to disguise differential treatment based on sex.