IndexAbstractIntroductionLegal and Constitutional ProvisionsEqual Pay for Equal ValueGender Pay Disparity in IT Companies in IndiaConclusion and RecommendationsAbstractThe principle of equal pay for equal work is applicable between equals . It cannot be applied to unequal. The dilemma is that equal pay for equal work cannot always be calculated in the form of a mathematical formula. Although this right is enshrined in Article 39 of the Constitution, its implementation regarding the equality clause under Article 14 has led to several difficulties over the years. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original Essay India addressed this problem way back in 1976 and enacted the Equal Remuneration Act which mandates 'equal pay for men and women for the same or similar work'. It also prohibits discrimination in hiring based on gender. However, the implementation of the same in letter and spirit remains a distant dream. In India, both the Constitution and legislation refer to equal pay for equal work, without mentioning equal value. The doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” is not an abstract doctrine and can be applied in a court of law. But equal pay must occur for equal work of equal value. Indian courts initially provided a relatively broad definition of equal employment, which would apply regardless of different hours of work or employment status. In recent years, however, the Court has reversed the situation. Our article will focus on equal pay for equal value with reference to employment opportunities in contemporary times. Our aim is to address gender pay equality on multiple fronts while respecting transparent pay structures, a responsive ombudsman and sensible legislation. Introduction Research Problem What are the legal dilemmas involved in achieving equal pay for equal work in India? pay for equal work and equal pay for equal value? According to the Global Wage Report, 2016-2017 published by the ILO, gender wage disparity in India is more than 30%. These numbers are surprising because articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution underline the need to guarantee equal opportunities in working conditions to all citizens to achieve social justice. The directive principles enshrined in Article 39 of the Constitution state that equal pay must be granted for equal work. To give effect to these constitutional principles, the Equal Remuneration Act was passed in 1976. However, a conflict arises as the legislations and Constitution of India only mention equal pay for equal work without mentioning the concept of equal worth which focuses on the quality of work. There is a lack of adequate literature regarding the concept of equal pay for equal value, as well as regarding gender pay disparity in IT companies. This shows that there is enough scope for study in this particular field. We will look at the background paper of the Working Group on Discrimination against Women in Law and Practice (the Working Group): Economic and Social Life, the Right to Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value, Sandra Fredman, University of Oxford . The second article is 'Gender pay gap in the Indian IT sector' written by Salminen-Karlsson, M. in 2015, published by Center for Gender Research, Uppsala University. The article examinesthe underlying causes of gender pay disparity in the IT field. The purpose of the research is to analyze the concept of equal pay for equal value against the existing concept of equal pay for equal work to address the changing trends in employment. . Furthermore, the paper also examines the existing legal conflict on the issue of gender pay equity in India. Our key objectives include: We intend to study the impacts of equal pay for equal work in Indian IT companies. We intend to address gender pay disparities on multiple fronts, such as a transparent pay structure and a responsive ombudsman. The study will be analytical in nature and will be based on the facts and information already available to carry out an analysis of the material in question. The researcher used the Equal Remuneration Act of 1976 as the primary source of study. Internet sources, including journals and research articles, are used as secondary sources for the study. To delve deeper into the topic, reference was also made to books. Legal and constitutional provisions The preamble of our Constitution contains the constitutional objectives that the authors of the Constitution intended to achieve, one of which is social justice. The word socialist in the preamble implies equal pay for equal work. Although the right to equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right, it can be interpreted through Articles 14, 15, 16 of the Constitution. Article 14 ensures the implementation of the equality clause and Article 16 states that there should be equal employment opportunities for all citizens. Article 39(d) states that there should be equal pay for equal work for both men and women. The principle of the Directive should be interpreted harmoniously and read with respect for fundamental rights. But there has been a conflict between the implementation of Article 14 and Article 39(d) because the doctrine of equal pay for equal work cannot be confined to strict limitations. According to Article 14 of the Constitution, if a classification is made on the basis of intelligible differentials that have a direct connection with the purpose to be achieved, such classification is permissible. Article 14 states that equals should be treated equally, it does not mean that unequals should be treated equally because mechanical equality before the law may result in injustice. The Supreme Court in the case of State of UP v. JP held that the different scale of pay in the same group of people doing similar work can be resolved if there is a difference in the nature of the work performed. Furthermore, in the case of Federation of AI Custom and Central Excise Stenographers (Recog.) v. Union of India, the Court emphasized that equal pay must depend on the “nature of the work performed” and not on the “mere volume of work” as “there may be a qualitative difference in terms of reliability and responsibility. He noted that the functions performed may be the same but the responsibilities are different. In the case of Markendeya v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Court observed that the difference in pay scale due to difference in education is justifiable and would not offend Articles 14 and 16. Therefore, if the employees are classified on the basis of educational qualification and to work experience to determine salary, this classification is permitted. There is no violation of Article 39(d) if the classification is fair, equitable and reasonable. Equal pay for equal value The right to equality ofPay for equal work should not be limited to equal pay for equal work, but should be extended to work of equal value under ILO Convention 100. This is because the underestimation of the value of work, due to discrimination against a particular group, mainly concerns women. The fact that women work at home and mainly take care of children, among other things, means that their paid work in the labor market is undervalued. Eliminating unequal pay for equal work is only the first step in this process. In the case of widespread occupational segregation, the problem is not that women receive less pay for the same work, but rather that they are concentrated in an underestimated feminization. The concept of work of equal value emphasizes the fact that the comparison should not be limited to the content of the job, but rather compare the requirements of the job, such as level of competence, commitment and responsibility, and working conditions. In India, the initial recognition of the principle of equality under the Constitutional Guarantee was revoked when the Supreme Court of India found it to be an act that "created chaos". Several groups across India began demanding equal pay with other groups, such as civil servants from one state demanding equal pay with civil servants from another state. Since this is a violation of the principle of decentralization aimed at interfering with workers' wages, the Court's subsequent view on the principle is very narrow. Markandey J said: “In our view, the courts set pay scales by applying the principle of equal pay for equal pay.” The works upset the high constitutional principle of the separation of powers between the three organs of the State. Aware of this, this Court in recent years has avoided applying the principle of equal pay for equal work, unless there is complete and total identity between the two groups (and even in this case the question should be submitted examined by a commission of experts appointed by the Government rather than the Court itself which grants a higher salary)". This led to a restrictive interpretation of the principle of equal pay for equal work. Meaning that unless there is “complete and total identity between the two groups,” equal pay for equal work is not required. In a 2017 report, the International Labor Organization (ILO) highlighted that the wage gap between Indian women and men is huge. The survey clearly reflects that men earn more than women in similar jobs. In many cases, the gap reached a staggering 30%. Data from the Monster Salary Index (2016) shows that the gender wage gap in India is still booming as the index highlights that the average hourly wage for men is 345.8 rupees, while for women it is only 259.8 rupees. In fact, in 2016 the gender wage gap averaged 25%. However, this figure varies from industry to industry. Example: In the manufacturing sector, the gender wage gap is 29.9%, while in the IT sector it is 38.2%, as the index highlights. However, there are numerous laws that protect equal pay for equal work for men and women, such as the "Equal Pay Act of 1976" which aims to provide equal pay to both workers and prevents discrimination based on gender in matters relating to employment and work opportunities. This not only guarantees women the right to equal pay for equal work, but under the law it canany disparities in the process of recruitment, training, promotion and transfer within the organization should also be questioned. However, the definition of “same work or work of a similar nature” does not meet the ILO requirements on equal pay for work of equal value. The statute defines it as “same work or work of a similar nature” as “work for which the skill, commitment and responsibility required are the same, when performed under similar working conditions, by a man or a woman and the differences, if any, between the skills, commitment and responsibility required of a man and those required of a woman are of no practical importance in relation to terms and conditions of employment.' The ILO CEACR has always underlined that this definition is too rigid and restrictive, because the concept of equal value goes beyond “similar work” and includes work of a completely different nature, but must be of equal value. The Committee is also concerned that India has not fulfilled its obligations under Article 3 of the Convention and has taken measures to promote an objective evaluation of its work based on the work to be done. It is stated that in India, women's pay is determined by classification, and this does not reflect the actual nature of the work performed. Sankaran confirmed this by pointing out that according to the “Minimum Wage Act, 1938”, women's occupations are usually classified as non-technical or unskilled. For example, in transplanting (which is done exclusively by women in most parts of India), agriculture, weeding, etc., although skills and experience are required for both activities, but classified as unskilled, while other activities they are usually performed by men who are considered as skilled work for which they benefit from higher wages. Gender Pay Disparity in IT Companies in India According to section 1 of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, this law is applicable to establishments only through notifications issued by the relevant government. According to notification number SO 144 (E), dated 2 March 1977, "data processing and cataloging services" fall within the scope of the law. Therefore, the IT and ITES sectors are now covered by the Equal Remuneration Act. Gender inequality in the labor market is a common phenomenon. IT services companies are no exception. The reasons attributed to gender disparity in IT service companies are as follows: In IT companies, work experience is a determining factor in deciding salary. Because women were expected to carry out family responsibilities, they took career breaks in the meantime that made it difficult for them to gain the experience that led to a high salary. It is often difficult for women to continue working after taking maternity breaks because the gap could affect their performance, salary levels, etc. A survey of IT professionals concluded that only 14% of women have work experience of 11 years or more, confirming that most women tend to leave their jobs after getting married. The report also confirmed a 29% gender pay parity in IT companies in India. Women's traditional role as wife and mother affected their advancement and growth in the software industry as they could not work longer hours or on weekends. Thus the availability factor has given men an edge over women in Indian IT companies. In the Indian software industry, gender pay parity is due to companies' organizational practices. They still believe in paternalistic leadership. Most IT companies in.