The principle of "equal pay for equal work" is a cornerstone of labour rights, aiming to ensure that individuals performing the same tasks receive equal compensation, regardless of their employment status. In India, this principle holds particular significance for temporary and ad-hoc workers, who often find themselves disadvantaged in terms of pay, benefits, and job security. This article examines the evolving legal landscape concerning equal pay and the regularization of temporary workers in India, with a focus on key judicial precedents and ongoing challenges.

Constitutional and Legal Framework

India's Constitution guarantees the right to equality under Article 14 (equality before the law) and Article 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment). These provisions provide a foundation for labour rights, including the principle of equal pay for equal work. Alongside these constitutional rights, the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, mandates equal pay for equal work, primarily to address gender wage disparities, but its protections extend to all workers, including those on temporary or ad-hoc contracts.

Despite these protections, temporary and ad-hoc workers in India frequently face unequal pay, fewer benefits, and insecure employment compared to permanent employees. This disparity highlights the challenges of enforcing labour rights, particularly for vulnerable workers in both the public and private sectors.

Key Judicial Precedents

Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, is a landmark case that established a clear legal framework for the regularization of temporary workers. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that temporary employees cannot demand automatic regularization based on years of service alone. The Court emphasized three key principles:

1. Sanctioned Posts: Regularization is only possible when a sanctioned post exists for the worker. The absence of a sanctioned post precludes automatic regularization.
2. Due Process: Regularization must follow proper recruitment procedures, and workers hired without due process—even if employed for extended periods—are not entitled to automatic regularization.
3. Scope of Equality: The equality provisions in Articles 14 and 16 cannot be used to justify the regularization of employees appointed outside the established legal framework.

This ruling differentiated between the principle of equal pay for equal work and the right to regularization. While temporary workers are entitled to fair compensation for their labour, the Court made it clear that regularization must be based on adherence to legal procedures and not merely on the duration of employment.

In the Amarkant Rai v. State of Bihar, (2015) 9 SCC 287, the Supreme Court adopted a slightly more flexible approach. The Court ruled in favor of a long-serving daily wage worker who had been employed for over 29 years. Despite the absence of a sanctioned post, the Court ordered the regularization of Rai's employment, acknowledging that workers who have been employed for decades, performing duties similar to permanent employees, may have a legitimate expectation of regularization. This case opened a potential avenue for other long-serving temporary workers to seek regularization, especially when they have contributed to an organization for extended periods. Although this ruling does not contradict Umadevi, it signals a more nuanced approach by the judiciary, recognizing the importance of tenure and long-term service in certain circumstances.

The Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Ilmo Devi, (2021) 5 SCC 1 reinforced the principles set forth in Umadevi. Ilmo Devi and other contingent workers, employed as sweepers in a post office, sought regularization. They argued that, despite performing the same duties as permanent employees, they were not being regularized due to the absence of sanctioned posts. The Court ruled that without sanctioned posts, temporary employees cannot claim regularization. The Court further emphasized that temporary workers, even if performing similar tasks, cannot demand parity with regular employees unless their appointments follow the proper recruitment processes. This ruling solidified the precedent that the absence of sanctioned posts is a legal barrier to regularization, irrespective of the tasks performed.

Equal Pay for Equal Work: Legal Interpretations

The principle of equal pay for equal work has been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court in various judgments, establishing that workers performing similar duties must receive comparable compensation. However, the application of this principle to temporary and ad-hoc workers has been subject to limitations. The Court has balanced the need for fair compensation with the realities of job security, benefits, and recruitment procedures. While temporary workers deserve fair pay for their labour, the Supreme Court has maintained that permanent employment and the benefits that come with it—such as job security, pensions, and other perks—are contingent on following due process in recruitment. The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, primarily designed to eliminate gender-based wage disparities, also extends its protection to all workers. However, its enforcement has been inconsistent, particularly in sectors that employ temporary workers in large numbers. Courts have struggled to apply the principle of equal work consistently, with outcomes sometimes varying depending on the nature of the work, the employer, and the legal context.

Challenges Faced by Temporary and Ad-Hoc Workers:

• Job Insecurity: Temporary contracts leave workers vulnerable to sudden termination, often without notice or severance.
• Limited Access to Benefits: Temporary workers are excluded from benefits like health insurance, pensions, and paid leave that are available to permanent employees.
• Wage Disparities: Temporary workers performing identical tasks to permanent employees frequently receive lower pay.
• Weak Legal Enforcement: Temporary workers, especially in the informal sector, are often unaware of their rights, and enforcement of labour laws remains inconsistent across industries and regions.

Pathways to Reform
Addressing the issue of equal pay for equal work for temporary and ad-hoc workers requires a multi-pronged approach, including stronger legal frameworks, improved enforcement, and greater transparency in recruitment and regularization processes. Potential reforms include:

1. Stronger Enforcement of Labour Laws: Governments must strengthen the enforcement of labour laws such as the Equal Remuneration Act to ensure that temporary workers are compensated fairly. Increasing the number of labour inspectors and empowering them to take swift action against employers who violate these laws is crucial.
2. Clear Pathways to Regularization: The creation of transparent processes for regularizing long-serving temporary workers, particularly those who have performed duties similar to permanent employees, would provide much-needed job security.
3. Awareness and Education: Many temporary workers are unaware of their legal rights. Raising awareness about labour laws and rights can empower workers to seek redress in cases of wage disparities and unfair treatment.
4. Employer Accountability: Both public and private sector employers should be held accountable for ensuring that temporary workers receive fair compensation and are not exploited due to their precarious employment status. Employers should adopt fair employment practices that prioritize equal pay and equitable treatment for all workers.

Final Thoughts
The principle of equal pay for equal work remains a critical issue in India's labour market, particularly for temporary and ad-hoc workers. While judicial precedents such as Umadevi, Ilmo Devi, and Amarkant Rai provide clarity on the legal boundaries of regularization, significant challenges remain in achieving fairness for temporary workers.

Creating an equitable labour market requires a concerted effort by policymakers, employers, and labour advocates. By addressing wage disparities and providing clear pathways to regularization, India can move closer to fulfilling the promise of equal pay for equal work for all its workers, regardless of their employment status.