IRENE FERNANDES Vs. NEO PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS these petitions raise common questions of law and fact they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) IN writ petition No. 1630 of 1994 the petitioner was employed with 1st respondent company M/s Neo Pharma Pvt. Ltd. from 16-3-1983. She was appointed to the post of Junior Executive in the accounts department. The petitioner was paid consolidated salary of Rs. 700/- per month. Ultimately by March 1991 her consolidated salary was raised to Rs. 1,475/- p. m. It is the case of the petitioner that the work done by her and that done by one Mr. Vithal Shetty working with the 1st respondent company is similar in nature. However, for similar work when Shri Vithal Shetty was being paid Rs. 1,357/- she was being paid only Rs. 700/-p. m. The petitioner therefore filed claim under section 7 (1) (b) of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 claiming payment at the same rate at which her male counterpart i. e. Vithal Shetty was paid.

(3.) THE Assistant Commissioner who has been appointed as an authority under the Equal remuneration Act, 1976 by his judgment and order dated 25-6-1992 allowed the application holding that respondent No. 1 company has violated the provisions of section 4 of Equal Remuneration Act and ordering the company to pay to the petitioner an amount shown in the application amended from time to time and also to pay the benefits arising out of payment like provident fund, bonus, gratuity, etc. He quantified the amount at Rs. 1,75,270. 40 p.