title: M/s. MacKinnon Mackenzie and Co. v. Audrey D'Costa, 26 March 1987.
abstract: The respondent female employee charged her employer with discrimination under the Equal Remuneration Act (No. 25 of 1976). She claimed that she was paid less as a stenographer than male stenographers performing the same work or work of a similar nature.  The Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision supporting the respondent's claims.  It rejected arguments that a) the work of female stenographers was different because they worked in a different place and as confidential stenographers attached to senior executives; and b) the difference in pay was justified under the terms of a settlement between the employer and the respondent's union.  It noted that an employer could not deliberately create conditions of work only with the object of driving away women from a particular type of work that they can otherwise perform with the object of paying them less and that union settlements must yield to the provisions of the Equal Remuneration Act.
mesh_terms: D001208:Asia; D003906:Developing Countries; D004467:Economics; D004651:Employment; D006280:Health Workforce; D007194:India; D007603:Jurisprudence; D011287:Prejudice; D012456:Salaries and Fringe Benefits; D012923:Social Class; D012940:Social Problems; D012959:Socioeconomic Factors
keywords: Asia; Court Decision; Developing Countries; Economic Factors; Human Resources; India; Labor Force--legal aspects; Labor Force--women; Pay Equity--legal aspects; Sex Discrimination--legal aspects; Social Discrimination; Social Problems; Socioeconomic Factors; Socioeconomic Status; Southern Asia