Skip to main content

The Equal Remuneration Act

 The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976

It would be very discriminatory in nature if one individual gets more paid for

the same work as done by another individual. Same is in the case of woman

compared to man. They do the same work as their male counterparts but paid

less than them or it can also be said as men are paid more than women. This is

not equality which should be there as we are living in the 21 st century and every

individual is same under the eyes of law. There should be no discrimination on

the basis of gender. Just because a woman do work, it does not mean that should

be paid less. The work is same and done in the same manner and it required

same kind of efforts and challenges from the individual’s side. It is because of

this discrimination present in the society that the law was introduced in 1976 to

promise equal remuneration to women and stop exploitation against them.

According to the Act, it provides for payment of remuneration at equal rates to

both men and women workers and everything of that sort. The employer does

not have this right to discriminate among its employees on the basis of sex.

Also, there should be no discrimination while recruiting them except some

places which are hazardous in nature. In that case, women cannot be employed

but in any other case they should not be rejected just on the basis that they are

women. It is against the law and anyone found doing that will be punished after

proper investigation stated in Section 8 of the Act which says:

a) Checking of the time that is the employer invites the employee at

reasonable hours.

b) Checking of any official or unofficial document for the purpose of

examination.

c) May call for evidence at any point.

d) Examining the employer.

e) Make copies of the requisite documents for attaching or investigating.

If any loophole will be present then the employer will be subject to penalties.

As per Section 10 of the Act, these loopholes are defined:

a) Fails to maintain a register.

b) Fails to produce the register when required.

c) Refuses or omits to give evidence as per requisitions.

d) Refuses to give any information.

e) Makes any recruitment in contravention of the provisions of this Act


f) Makes payment at unequal rates.

g) Makes any discrimination on the basis of the sex.

h) Fails to carry out any direction as mentioned in the Act.

The penalties which will be imposed in above mentioned cases will be 10,000

which shall be the least. It may even extend to 20,000 or imprisonment not less

than 3 months which can also be extended to one year. In any case, the

punishment will increase according to the offence.

Therefore, these are important things which should be always kept in mind

while recruiting and running a business of that sort. There should be equality

because women are not less than men. They also do the same hard work for the

work to be done and that is why should also be paid in the same way. Women

are not demanding more, they are just demanding to be equal.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree