Newsletter Apr - Jun 2025

Duties of Employer under Equal Remuneration Act

In the formative stages of Indian civilization, women were recognized as equal participants in social and intellectual spheres, notably during the Vedic period. However, over time, societal frameworks shifted, marginalizing women in various spheres of life. By the time India gained independence, systemic gender-based disparities were deeply entrenched. In response, India’s Constitution and various legislations began prioritizing the protection and promotion of gender equality. Among these measures, equal compensation for identical work regardless of gender emerged as a critical objective. The successful execution of this principle largely hinges on the responsibility undertaken by employers.  

Introduction

In recent decades, women’s participation in the workforce has grown steadily. Historically, certain professions were restricted based on gender norms, with women often relegated to roles deemed ‘appropriate’ for them. This led to a perception that women were less efficient or committed than men, particularly due to presumed domestic responsibilities. As a consequence, many employers undervalued their labour, resulting in lower wages and weakened negotiation power for female workers. 

With changing times, women have entered diverse professional domains previously dominated by men. To protect their interests and uphold the ideals of equality, several labour laws have been enacted at both central and state levels. These include the Workmen’s Compensation Act, Minimum Wages Act, Factories Act, Maternity Benefit Act, and notably, the Equal Remuneration Act of 1976. Collectively, these laws aim to eliminate wage-based discrimination and foster a gender-neutral work environment. 

Constitutional Validity

Gender justice forms a foundational principle of any progressive and equitable society. The outdated notion of women as the inherently weaker sex has been consistently challenged through international instruments and national reforms aimed at securing equal rights. Globally, multiple efforts have been made to eliminate gender-based discrimination and promote wage equality. 

  1. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), 1979, primarily seeks to eliminate discrimination against women and promote gender equality in all spheres. 
  2. The International Labour Organization’s Convention of 1951 advocates for equal remuneration for men and women performing work of equal value. 
  3. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, under Article 23, affirms the right of every individual to receive equal pay for equal work, without discrimination. 

The Constitution of India enshrines several provisions to promote and safeguard gender equality: 

  1. The Preamble guarantees justice, equality, and dignity for all citizens. 
  2. Article 14 ensures equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. 
  3. Article 15(1) prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, among other grounds. 
  4. Article 15(3) allows the State to make special provisions for women and children, recognizing the need for affirmative action. 
  5. Article 16 secures equal opportunity in matters of public employment regardless of gender. 
  6. Article 39(a) directs the State to ensure that all citizens, both men and women, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood. 
  7. Article 39(d) explicitly mandates equal pay for equal work for both men and women. 
  8. Article 42 requires the State to provide for humane working conditions and maternity relief. 

These constitutional guarantees reflect the Indian State’s commitment to eliminating gender-based economic disparities and fostering a just and inclusive workforce. 

 

The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work, while not a fundamental right, is firmly recognized as a constitutional mandate under Article 39(d) of the Directive Principles of State Policy. It guarantees that men and women performing the same or similar work are entitled to equal remuneration without discrimination. To give effect to this constitutional provision, the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 was enacted. This welfare-oriented legislation prohibits employers from paying unequal wages based on gender and bars discrimination in recruitment, promotion, and other employment conditions. The Act ensures fair remuneration regardless of the physical strength of the employee and aims to eliminate socio-economic injustices rooted solely in sex-based bias.

Duties of Employers Under the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976

Section 4: Obligation to Pay Equal Remuneration

Employers are required to pay equal wages to male and female employees performing the same or similar work. No worker should receive remuneration, whether in cash or kind, at a rate less favorable than that paid to a worker of the opposite sex for equivalent work. Furthermore, employers cannot reduce the wages of any worker merely to comply with this provision. If, prior to the Act’s commencement, different wages were paid based solely on sex, the higher rate must be applied to all employees following the Act’s enforcement. 

Section 5: Prohibition of Discrimination in Recruitment and Service Conditions

Employers must not discriminate between men and women during recruitment or in employment conditions such as promotions, training, or transfers for the same or similar work. Exceptions apply only when legislation specifically restricts or prohibits the employment of women in certain roles. 

Section 8: Maintenance of Registers

Under Section 8, along with Rule 6, employers are obligated to maintain accurate registers and records of all employees, using the prescribed Form B. This register must include details such as worker categories, job descriptions, number of male and female employees, rates of remuneration, and components of the wages. 

Case Laws

In the significant judgment of Randhir Singh v. Union of India, the Supreme Court adopted a liberal and socially aware interpretation of the principle of equal pay for equal work. Moving beyond a strict legalistic view, the Court emphasized the constitutional vision of social justice reflected in the Preamble. It held that the right to equal remuneration arises from Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which ensure equality before the law and equal employment opportunities. The Court further stated that although pay differences may exist due to certain classifications, when workers perform the same job for the same employer, they are entitled to equal wages. This ruling reinforces the directive under Article 39(d), which calls for the elimination of gender-based wage discrimination. 

Conclusion

Section 16 of the Equal Remuneration Act allows the government to issue notifications if wage differences exist between men and women in any workplace, whether based on sex or other reasons. In such cases, the employer will not be held responsible under the Act. The Central Government enforces this law in its departments like Railways and Postal services, while State Governments enforce it in their areas such as transportation and electricity through their Labour Departments. The Equal Remuneration Rules, 1976, framed by the Central Government, provide guidelines for handling complaints and claims under the Act. The legality of these Rules was confirmed in the case of Minerva Talkies vs. State of Karnataka (1988).  

Recent Amendments & Notifications

UAN & Aadhaar Seeding Deadline Extended under ELI Scheme

The Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) has extended the deadline for activating the Universal Account Number (UAN) and linking it with Aadhaar and bank accounts till June 30, 2025, under the Employment Linked Incentive (ELI) Scheme. This extension aims to ensure wider participation and gives employees more time to complete the required formalities. By linking UAN with Aadhaar and bank accounts, employees can access direct benefit transfers and EPFO services more smoothly.  

Bulk UAN Generation Enabled for Special Cases

EPFO has introduced a temporary relaxation allowing the creation of Universal Account Numbers (UANs) without Aadhaar, specifically for remittances from Exempted Provident Fund Trusts (post exemption surrender or cancellation) and recovery/quasi-judicial proceedings. A software update enables mass UAN generation using existing Member IDs and data, even if Aadhaar is not linked initially. However, these UANs will remain frozen—no transfers or withdrawals are allowed—until Aadhaar seeding is completed. 

Payment of past contributions of employees by an employer through demand draft

EPFO has clarified that in exceptional cases where employers face technical issues using the ECR system, past dues may be accepted via Demand Draft. This is allowed only if the Officer-in-Charge is satisfied that future remittances will be made online. The employer must also submit an undertaking to verify beneficiaries during claims. All relevant returns, interest, and damages must still be collected as per the Compliance Manual. 

EPFO Confirms 8.25% Interest Rate for FY 2024–25

The EPFO has officially announced an 8.25% interest rate on EPF accounts for FY 2024–25, maintaining the same rate as the previous year. Approved by the Central Government under Para 60(1) of the EPF Scheme, this ensures continued returns and financial stability for members. Interest will be calculated on contributions from April 1, 2024, to March 31, 2025, and credited to member accounts accordingly. 

Validation of CCS (Pension) Rules and Pension Liability Funding Approved

The Lok Sabha, via the Finance Bill 2025 (passed on March 25), validated the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules of 1972, 2021, and 2023, along with all related amendments and instructions. The legislation affirms the government’s authority to distinguish pensioners based on retirement dates and previous Pay Commission norms, effective retrospectively from June 1972. It also confirms that pension expenditures are chargeable to the Consolidated Fund of India. 

Second Phase Schedule for Apprentice Engagement Released

The Labour Commissioner of Haryana has issued a notification outlining the second phase schedule for the engagement of apprentices under the Apprentices Act, 1961. This round applies to designated trades in Government Departments and State Public Sector Undertakings (SPSUs) for the year 2025. Eligible candidates can apply as per the updated schedule released. 

ESIC Payroll Data – January 2025

The Ministry of Labour and Employment reported that 18.19 lakh new workers were enrolled under the ESI Scheme in January 2025. Of these, 8.67 lakh were young workers (aged up to 25), and 3.65 lakh were female employees. Additionally, 27,805 new establishments and 85 transgender employees were registered under the scheme during the month. 

Consumer Price Index for Agri & Rural Labour – February 2025

The All-India Consumer Price Index for Agricultural Labourers (CPI-AL) and Rural Labourers (CPI-RL) fell by 7 points each in February 2025, to 1309 and 1321 respectively. Year-on-year inflation based on these indices dropped to 4.05% (CPI-AL) and 4.10% (CPI-RL), compared to 7.43% and 7.36% in February 2024. 

One-Time Payment of Past EPF Dues via Demand Draft Allowed

The Ministry of Labour & Employment has clarified that employers unable to remit past EPF dues through the Electronic Challan-cum-Return (ECR) system may opt for payment via Demand Draft, provided it is a one-time settlement. This provision aims to facilitate compliance in exceptional cases. 

EPFO Eases Claim and Bank Account Seeding Process

EPFO has simplified key processes for its members by removing the need to upload cheque leaves or attested passbooks for claims and eliminating the requirement of employer approval for bank account seeding with UAN. These steps aim to enhance ease of living for members and ease of doing business for employers. 

VDA Rates Revised for Agricultural Workers Effective April 2025

The Ministry of Labour and Employment has revised the Variable Dearness Allowance (VDA) for agricultural employees, effective April 1, 2025. The revision is based on the rise in the average Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers from 402.09 to 413.42, reflecting an increase of 11.33 points. 

EPFO Enables UAN Activation via Aadhaar Face Authentication on UMANG App

EPFO has introduced UAN generation and activation through Aadhaar-based Face Authentication Technology using the UMANG App. This initiative offers a contactless, secure, and fully digital method, enhancing convenience for crores of EPF members and streamlining access to social security services. 

EPFO Allows Advances Under Para 68B (7) on Self-Declaration Basis

The Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) has issued a circular permitting members to apply for advances under Para 68B(7) of the EPF Scheme, 1952, based on self-declaration. Members can claim this advance after 60 months from completion of their dwelling house, regardless of prior withdrawals under Para 68B. System updates ensure smooth processing without unnecessary rejections. 

EPFO Revamps Form 13 to Simplify PF Transfer Claims

EPFO has revamped the Form 13 (Transfer-out) functionality to simplify the transfer claim process. The updated form now includes a detailed breakdown of taxable and non-taxable components of PF accumulations, making the process more transparent and user-friendly.

ESIC Reports 15.43 Lakh New Enrolments in February 2025

The Ministry of Labour and Employment announced that 15.43 lakh new workers were enrolled under the ESI Scheme in February 2025, including 7.36 lakh young workers (≤25 years), 3.35 lakh female employees, and 74 transgender employees. Additionally, 25,526 new establishments registered under the scheme during the month. 

Ministry of Education Launches AI Apprenticeship Program Under NATS

The Board of Practical Training (Eastern Region) notified that the Ministry of Education has introduced an AI Apprenticeship Program under the National Apprenticeship Training Scheme (NATS). This initiative invites registered establishments to provide on-the-job training, offering students practical experience and skill development in AI across sectors. 

Declaration of Public Utility Services of Industries Engaged in Processing or Production or Distribution of Fuel Gases

The Ministry of Labour and Employment has declared industries involved in the processing, production, or distribution of fuel gases—including coal gas, natural gas, and similar gases—as Public Utility Services under the Industrial Disputes Act. This declaration will be in effect for six months from May 13, 2025, to ensure the continuous and undisrupted supply of these critical energy resources. 

EPFO Releases Payroll Data for March 2025

The Ministry of Labour & Employment has released EPFO’s provisional payroll data for March 2025, showing a net addition of 14.58 lakh members. This marks a 1.15% year-on-year increase compared to March 2024, reflecting rising employment trends and improved awareness of EPF benefits through EPFO’s continued outreach efforts. 

Simplified Process for Handling Overlapping Service in EPF Transfer Claims

EPFO has issued a circular to simplify the transfer claim process. Going forward, the Transferor Office must process claims even in cases of overlapping service periods, without rejecting or returning them. Clarifications will only be sought when genuinely necessary, streamlining the overall experience for EPF members. 

Case Laws :

Ajay Raj Shetty .V Director and Another 
Case No: 2025 INSC 500 
Date of Order: April 17, 2025 
Authority: Supreme Court of India 

Facts of the Case

In 2001, the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) classified M/s Electriex (India) Limited company as a sick industry. In 2002, BIFR ordered a change in the company’s management, a decision which was appealed before the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR) but dismissed. Subsequently, the High Court remanded (ordered to review again) the matter back to BIFR for reconsideration. During inspections in 2010 and 2011, the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) found that although the company had deducted Rs. 8,26,696 from employees’ wages as ESI contributions, it had failed to deposit this amount with ESIC. The company’s authorized signatory was identified as the General Manager and Principal Employer (Appellant). Based on these findings, Respondent No. 1 filed a private complaint under Section 85(a) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 against the Appellant and the company. 

Sections Involved

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 

  • Section 85 – Punishment for failure to pay  
  • Section 85(i) where he commits an offence under clause (a) and clause (b)  
  • Section 2(17) – “Principal Employer” means –  
  • Regulation 10-C & 31-c of the Employees’ State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 
Issues Involved in this case
  1. Whether the Appellant, claiming to be merely a Technical Coordinator, could be held legally liable as the General Manager and Principal Employer of the company under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948? 
  2. Whether the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence to establish the Appellant’s designation and his role in the supervision and control of the establishment, thereby attracting liability under Section 2(17) of the Act?  
  3. Whether the failure to deposit the deducted ESI contributions constituted a punishable offence under Section 85(a) read with Section 85(i) of the Act?
Decision

The Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Section 85(i)(b) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment along with a fine of ₹5,000. This conviction was affirmed by the First Appellate Court and subsequently by the High Court, which found that the evidence on record clearly established the Appellant’s designation as General Manager and role as Principal Employer of the establishment during the relevant period. 

The courts interpreted that the concept of a “Principal Employer” under Section 2(17) of the Act encompasses not only the owner or occupier of a factory but also any anyone in charge of overseeing and managing the business. Despite the Appellant’s claim that he was only a Technical Coordinator, no documents—such as an appointment letter, wage slips, or records from the employer—were produced to support this claim. On the contrary, the official ESIC inspection report identified him as the General Manager and the person supervising operations, which brought him within the legal definition of a Principal Employer. 

Ruling and Reasoning

Concurring with the lower courts’ conclusions that the appellant was liable under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that he was in charge of overseeing and managing the business and, as such, qualified as the “principal employer” under Section 2(17) of the Act. The designation listed in official papers had substantial evidential value, the Court emphasized, and the appellant did not refute it with any substantial evidence, including appointment letters, wage slips, or other supporting documentation. The Supreme Court upheld the sentence and fine, directing the Appellant to serve the remaining imprisonment term and pay the fine. 

Indo Count Industries Ltd vs Sanjay Pandurang Ghorpade 
Case No:  
Date of Order: April 30, 2025 
Authority: Bombay High Court 

Facts of the Case

The petitioner-employer has about 805 employees who work at its Kolhapur factory, which produces cotton yarn. For the area, the Shahu Soot Kapad Kamgar Sangh is the official union. Longtime workers Sanjay Pandurang Ghorpade and Shankar Mahadeo Takmare were hired in 1991 and 1994, respectively. Employee representatives signed a collective agreement on April 15, 2006, which stated that the employer’s retirement age is 58 years old. The agreement went into effect on January 1, 2006, and ended on December 31, 2010. The Respondents were notified in April and June 2024 that they would be retiring at the age of 58. The Respondents were informed about their impending retirement at age 58 (in April and June 2024). However, they challenged their retirement before reaching 60 years of age by filing complaints for unfair labour practices before the Labour Court. In order to prevent the employer from retiring the Respondents before they turned sixty, the Labour Court granted temporary relief. The petitioner-employer is currently contesting these interim rulings, which were eventually affirmed by the Industrial Court. 

Issues Involved in this Case
  1. Whether the Petitioner-employer can retire the Respondent-employees at the age of 58 years as per the 2006 agreement?  
  2. Whether the Respondents are entitled to continue employment until they attain the age of 60 years, as protected by the interim orders issued by the Labour and Industrial Courts restraining their superannuation?  
Section Involved

Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946   

  • Section 35 deals with Settlement of Standing Orders by Commissioner of Labour. 
  • Section 40 deals with Standing Orders to be determinative of employer-employee relations. 
  • Model Standing Order 25-A – 
    Specifies that the age of retirement is 60 years unless otherwise agreed by valid settlement. 
  • Schedule I explains about the Enumerates “age of retirement” as one of the matters to be governed by Standing Orders. 
  • Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 
  • Section 30(2) deals with the provision under which interim relief was sought from the Labour Court. 
Decision

The Hon’ble High Court, upon a comprehensive examination of the facts and applicable legal provisions, held that the retirement age of the respondent-employees was validly governed by the Settlement Agreement dated 15 April 2006, which fixed the age of superannuation at 58 years. The Court determined that the respondents were barred from selectively contesting the retirement clause at the conclusion of their service since they had accepted the terms and perks under the agreement during their tenure. A mutually agreed upon and legally binding settlement, like the 2006 Agreement in this case, will take precedence over certified standing orders, the Court explained, citing Section 40(1) read with Section 35(5) of the Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946. It was further decided that the Memorandum of Settlement, which was executed on February 6, 2025, and increased the retirement age to 60 years, did not apply to employees who had already achieved the age of 58. As a result, the Labour Court and the Industrial Court’s interim rulings mandating employment beyond the age of 58 were overturned, and the Court reaffirmed that a mutually agreed-upon contractual retirement age is legally enforceable. The Court ruled in the favour of the employer’s right to enforce the retirement age of 58 years as per the original settlement agreement, rejecting the claim for extension of service beyond this age. 

Conclusion

The court affirmed the validity of the agreed retirement age of 58 years, emphasizing that the employer’s standing orders and settlement terms must be respected. The petitioner-employer’s position was upheld, and no extension of service beyond the stipulated age was granted. 

Judgments Snippets

  1. The agent of the owner or occupier of a factory is equally liable for any violation of the provisions of the Employees’ State Insurance (ESI) Act — 2025 LLR 600, Supreme Court of India.  
  2. A woman is entitled to maternity benefits even if she was on sanctioned leave during the three months preceding delivery- — 2025 LLR 629, Kerala High Court.  
  3. The management could stop paying customary allowance if the salary paid is more than the minimum wages — 2025 LLR 644, Andhra Pradesh High Court. 
  4. Period spent as a probationer to be included in the length of service for the purpose of payment of gratuity— 2025 LLR 638, Calcutta High Court.  
  5. ESI paid by principal employer to the employees of the contractor before the contractor obtained its code number would not make the contract sham— 2025 LLR 621, Madhya Pradesh High Court.  
  6. Employee cannot avoid contract at a subsequent stage merely because a term isn’t beneficial for him— 2025 LLR 594, Supreme Court of India.  
  7. Minimum wages are not amenable to split up into basic and DA for the purposes of payment— 2025 LLR 644, Andhra Pradesh High Court 
  8. Even an employee who is temporarily engaged is covered under the Employees Compensation Act— 2025 LLR 607, Delhi High Court.  
  9. Principal employer not to pay PF dues of loading/unloading labourers engaged through contractors— 2025 LLR 669, Chhattisgarh High Court.  
  10. Establishment not covered under EPF Act will have to pay dues for employees of defaulting contractors— 2025 LLR 690, Madras High Court.  
  11. Making a temporary employee work for 18 years is unfair labour practice and such an employee is entitled to regularisation— 2025 LLR WEB 448, Calcutta High Court.  
Questionnaire

1. A worker who has been employed in an office for more than a year but dismissed by his employer without any appropriate reason. This matter must be addressed under the…..

(a) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 

(b) Minimum Wages Act, 1948 

(c) The Payment of Wages Act, 1936 

(d) None of the Above 

2.As per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, an employee becomes eligible to claim gratuity after completing how many years of continuous service with the employer? 

A) 3 years

B) 4 years

C) 4 years and 240 days

D) 5 years

3. Under which section of the EPF Act is the employer required to contribute to the provident fund?

A) Section 3

B) Section 5

C) Section 6

D) Section 8

4. What is the current standard contribution rate for both employer and employee under the EPF scheme?

A) 10% each

B) 12% each

C) 8.33% each

D) 15% employer and 10% employee

5. If a contractor fails to pay professional tax or other statutory dues to the contract labour, who becomes liable for the payment under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970?

A) The contract laborer must bear the loss

B) The State Government

C) The trade union

D) The principal employer 

Answers
  1. (a) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 
  2. (C) 4 years and 240 days and (D) 5 years 
  3. (C) Section 6 
  4. (B) 12% each 
  5. (D) The principal employer 

Newsletter

    Newsletter