Open Access Research Article
White Black Legal – International Law Journal · ISSN 2581-8503
GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE: A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE IN INDIA
Read the Full Research Paper
Access the complete open-access article in PDF format. No login is required.
Abstract
GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE: A LEGAL
PERSPECTIVE IN INDIA
AUTHORED BY - DR. PRADEEP
KACHCHAWA[1]
ABSTRACT
This
research paper critically reviews the issue of Gender Discrimination in the
Workplace: A Legal Perspective in India and provides the background of the same
in the context of the Constitution of India, the various Statutory legislations
in India, the interpretation of the same by the various courts of India and the
India's commitment under International Laws and Conventions. The study starts
by examining the conceptual underpinning of the workplace gender discrimination
concept, categorizing it into the three types of discrimination: direct,
indirect and structural. It then examines the constitutional implications of
equality, especially Article 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution as well as the
constitution of the Directives of State Policy namely Article 39, 42 and 43
that provide formal and substantive equality. The statutory framework is
analysed on the basis of various legislations such as Equal Remuneration Act
(now incorporated into Code on Wages, 2019), the Maternity Benefit Act, the
Sexual Harassment of women at workplace Act (POSH Act, 2013) and the
Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. The laws are designed to
implement constitutional obligations, but may be difficult to implement,
specifically in informal sectors. The evolution of the judiciary from a
protective paternalistic regime to substantive equality is studied by citing a
few landmark cases like Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan, Air India vs. Nargesh
Meerza and Charu Khurana vs. Union of India. The paper also fits India's obligations
in the international legal framework, looking at obligations under the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
(CEDAW) and the conventions of the International Labour Organization (ILO) on
equal pay and non-discrimination. It is now possible to draw some conclusions
on enforcement mechanisms, pay transparency and rules of burden shifting from
comparative perspectives in the United States (Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act, 1964), the United Kingdom (Equality Act, 2010) and the European Union
(Directive 2006/54/EC and the successive reforms). These models highlight the
lessons for India which include the inclusion of independent equality bodies,
the need for more effective remedies, the need for harmonization of personal
laws, and the need for intersectional protections.
Keywords:
Gender discrimination, workplace equality, constitutional law, POSH Act, Equal
Remuneration, CEDAW, ILO conventions, Title VII, Equality Act, EU directives,
India.
INTRODUCTION
The
issue of gender discrimination in workplace is still one of the most entrenched
in the socio-legal and constitutional landscape of India. While there is a
strong body of constitutional protections, laws, and judicial decisions, the
real world for women and gender minorities remains a landscape of deep-rooted
hierarchies, unequal wages, occupational segregation and systemic exclusion.
Work is not only a means of livelihood, but also a right that enables people to
express themselves, have dignity and take part in society. Discrimination is a
violation of the individuals' rights and of the constitutional vision of
justice, liberty, equality and fraternity at the same time it deprives
individuals from enjoying the same opportunities.[2]
Constitutional
Foundations
The
Indian Constitution provides a strong normative basis for gender equality. All
these articles, Articles 14, 15(1) and (3) and 16, along with Directives such
as Articles 39(a), 39(d), 42 provide both formal equality and substantive
equality and permit positive discrimination to counter negative discrimination.[3]
India ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women (CEDAW) in 1993, further reinforcing them in their international
commitments to counter workplace discrimination.[4]
Statutory
Framework
There
are a number of statutes that implement constitutional requirements. The
provisions of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, which are now included in the
Code, specifically ban differences in remuneration based upon gender, including
transgender persons.[5]
Women's employment in private sector is also protected by the Maternity Benefit
Act, 1961, as amended in 2017 to pay them for 26 weeks after childbirth, and
concerns are also raised about this in terms of discouraging women from taking
up employment in the private sector.[6]
The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and
Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) provides a comprehensive procedure to address
sexual harassment, which also extends to women beyond binary genders; and the
Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 prohibits discrimination
against transgender persons in relation to employment.[7]
Judicial
Developments
Indian
courts have been instrumental in creating a transformative environment in the
workplace. In C.B. Muthamma v. Union of India, the Supreme Court struck down
discriminatory service rules requiring women diplomats to resign upon marriage.[8]
In Air India v. Nargesh Meerza, the Court invalidated rules terminating air
hostesses upon pregnancy, recognizing such provisions as arbitrary and
violative of dignity.[9]
In Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. v. Audrey D’Costa, the Court upheld the
principle of equal pay for equal work, rejecting artificial job classifications
used to justify wage disparities.[10]
The landmark Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan case laid down binding guidelines
against sexual harassment, later codified in the POSH Act.[11]
More recent cases, such as Charu Khurana v. Union of India, struck down
discriminatory union practices in the film industry,[12]
while Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa reinforced employer liability under
the POSH Act.[13]
These judgments illustrate the judiciary’s evolving approach from protective
paternalism to substantive equality.
Contemporary
Challenges
Although
there are constitutional and statutory protections for gender discrimination in
the workplace, it still exists. The Global Gender Gap Index (2023) puts India
at 127th position out of the 146 countries, highlighting economic participation
and opportunity gaps of 20-30% on average between women and men doing similar
work.[14]
Women are stereotyped and are generally underrepresented in lower-paid, less
secure occupations, and leadership roles are still male-dominated. Fear of
retaliation, stigma and institutional lack of compliance with the POSH Act
still creates underreporting of sexual harassment. Transgender people are even
more marginalized, and more than 90% are doing informal or marginalized work.
Vulnerabilities are exacerbated by intersectional discrimination at the
intersection of caste, class and gender.
Meaning of
Workplace Gender Discrimination
Gender discrimination in the workplace refers to any
difference, exclusion or preference that disadvantages, disadvantages or
advantage women and girls in the same ways as men and boys, in an employment
context and has an impact on equality of opportunity or treatment.
Discrimination in India is seen as inequitable pay, lack of promotion, sexual
harassment, occupational segregation and lack of representation for a leader.[15]
The definition of “workplace” is very wide, covering,
amongst others, offices, homes, digital areas, and transport provided by the
employer, meaning that there is also protection in the unorganized sector. [16]
Constitutional
Scope
Gender equality forms the core of the
Indian Constitution, which has incorporated it in various provisions as
follows:
·
Article 14:
Equality before law.
·
Article 15(1): No
discrimination on the basis of sex.
·
Article 15(3):
Affirmative action for women. (allowed)
·
Article 16:
Equality of opportunity in public employment.
·
Directive
Principles (Articles 39(a, 39(d) and 42): Equal livelihood, equal pay,
maternity relief.
These provisions are based on two
principles: formal equality, or equal treatment, and substantive equality, or
corrective measures to redress system disadvantages.
Statutory
Framework
Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 / Code on Wages, 2019:
Provides for equal pay for equal work. Childcare and Domestic Workers
(Amendment) Act, 1998: Covers requirements for childcare and employment of
domestic workers during pregnancy. The POSH Act, 2013, aims to prevent and
redress sexual harassment, including Internal Complaints Committees.
Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019: bars discrimination
against transgender persons in employment.
Constitutional
Foundations of Workplace Equality in India
Indian Constitution is the foundation of equality at
the workplace, containing both normative and enabling provisions for the
eradication of discrimination. It has been based on the Article 14, 15 and 16
and further strengthened by the following Directive Principles of the
Constitution: Article 39, Article 42 and Article 43 and through judicial
interpretation. These provisions create two conceptions of equality: formal
equality, requiring equal treatment by law, and substantive equality, allowing
for positive action to compensate for disadvantage. This constitutional
structure has deeply influenced debates on gender equality in the world of
work, making equality a constitutional requirement instead of a mere wish.
Equality Before
the Law (article 14)
Article 14 is a declaration that “the State shall not
deny” a person “equality before the law or the equal protection of laws in the
territory of India.” This has two aspects, one negative and one positive:
equality before the law, which is a negative concept, meaning that the State
must not grant any special privileges to anyone; and equal protection of laws,
which is a positive concept, meaning that the State must treat all persons
similarly situated in the same manner. The Supreme Court has always read Article
14 as a provision that is dynamic. In the employment scenario, Article 14 has
been utilized to hit arbitrary service rules and discriminatory practices and
widen the scope of equality to guarantee that it is not a hollow promise but a
substantive guarantee.[17]
Article 15:
Discrimination prohibited
The last provision of Article 15(3) gives the State
the authority to make special provisions for women and children, which is very
relevant in the context of workplace equality, where the extension of equality
to women workers is manifested through measures of affirmative action. Article
15 has been read as broadly as by the judiciary.[18]
The Supreme Court's rulings in State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan and
recent amendments to Article 15 in the 103rd Amendment to the Constitution,
including Article 15(6) for EWS, highlight the dynamic nature of Article 15 and
its focus on non-discrimination while also recognizing the need for affirmative
action. In the employment field, Article 15 has played an important role in
establishing and legitimizing protective legislation for women, including
maternity benefits and safety at work.
Article 16:
Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment
Equality of opportunity in public employment is
guaranteed by Article 16(1) and (2) bars discrimination on the grounds of
religion, race, caste or sex, descent, place of birth or residence. Clauses
(4), (4A) and (4B) provide for reservations for backward classes and SC/STs,
including in promotions. The 103rd Amendment introduces Clause (6) for EWS
reservation 10%. Judicial interpretation has played a key role in the
development of Article 16. Article 16 has been instrumental in eliminating
gender discriminatory practices in public employment in situations like those
in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, which upheld OBC reservations while
limiting the overall quota of reservations at 50%[19]
and in C.B. Muthamma v. Union of India, which declared the service rules
barring women diplomats from holding posts once they marry to be discriminatory
on the ground of equality[20]
and in Air India v. Nargesh Meerza, which invalidated service rules for
termination of employment for air hostesses on the grounds of pregnancy, which
are inconsistent with dignity and equality.[21]
Directive
Principles: Articles 39, 42, 43
The non-justiciable provisions of the Directive
Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) offer important guidelines for workplace
equality. The judiciary has repeatedly interpreted these to be enforceable
rights, such as in Article 39(a) for the right to equal livelihood for men and
women, and Article 42, which requires just and humane conditions of work, and
maternity relief, and Article 43, which requires the State to secure living
wages and decent working conditions. These interpretations reflect how, although
DPSPs are non-statutory, they have been interpreted by the judiciary as
substantive guarantees, thereby furthering the principle of equality in the
workplace.
International
Legal Perspective on Workplace Gender Equality
The fight against gender discrimination in the
workplace is not limited to the borders of any single country – it's a
worldwide problem that is tackled with international conventions, treaties and
comparative laws. International instruments like Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the International
Labour Organization (ILO) conventions need to be considered in the context of
the constitutional and statutory provisions in India. A comparative study of the
jurisdictions such as the United States, the United Kingdom and the European
Union also provides further light on best practices and enforcement mechanisms
which can be adopted in India. The international experiences offer a
comprehensive view of equality at work and offer lessons for India's ongoing
labour law system.
CEDAW Obligations
CEDAW (adopted in 1979 by the UN General Assembly)[22]
is referred to as the 'international bill of rights for women' which defines
discrimination in the broadest terms, including both direct and indirect
discrimination.[23]
Article 2 requires that states take law and policy measures to prevent
discrimination, and Article 11 requires that states take steps to eradicate
discrimination in the workplace with respect to equal pay, maternity
protection, workplace safety and elimination of sexual harassment.[24]
Indian courts have used CEDAW to expand constitutional
guarantees. In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan,[25]
the Supreme Court used CEDAW in developing binding guidelines against workplace
sexual harassment while in Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, the
Court referred to CEDAW obligations to uphold workplace equality.[26]
However, there are still some issues to address. That
the vision of CEDAW is not fully realised due to enforcement gaps, cultural
resistance and intersectional discrimination (based on caste, class and
disability). Furthermore, there is tension between the personal laws and the
obligation to international equality towards which India has gone to the extent
of reserving Article 16, which highlights the necessity of harmonization.
The two ILO
Conventions are on Equal Pay and Non-Discrimination.There are two ILO
Conventions; one on Equal Pay, one on Non-Discrimination.
The International Labour Organization (ILO) is a key
body involved in developing equality in work. The following conventions are
especially pertinent: Convention on the Equal Remuneration for Work of Equal
Value, 1951 (No. 100);[27]
Convention on Discrimination (Employment and Occupation), 1958 (No. 111). India
has ratified Convention No. 100 and Convention No. 111 and has thus undertaken
to remove wage discrimination and discrimination in employment and occupation.[28]
However, there are still wage disparities. It has been
found that Indian women are paid 20–30% less than men for the same work and
this gap is higher in the unorganized sectors.[29]
There is weak enforcement of equal pay in sectors with unorganized labour.
ILO's focus on equal pay for equal value of work also underscores the
importance of shifting the discourse from formal equality to structural
equality and addressing issues of occupational segregation and undervaluation
of women's work in India.
The Civil Rights
Act, 1964 (Title VII) of the United States.
The United States has a well-established framework in
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which bars workplace discrimination
for employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin,
both through disparate treatment (intentional discrimination) and disparate
impact (neutral policies with discriminatory effects).[30]
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing
by investigating complaints, litigating cases and remedies, including damages,
reinstatement and policy changes.[31]
Title VII has been expanded through judicial
interpretation. The U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Meritor Savings Bank v.
Vinson (1989) and Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) demonstrate how the laws
prohibiting workplace discrimination have evolved to reflect new conceptions of
gender and equality, especially regarding sex discrimination in the context of
sexual orientation and gender identity.[32]
The main takeaway from Title VII for India is that
robust institutional enforcement is imperative. In contrast, EEOC in the USA
has a function of investigating and litigating cases, which is missing to a
great extent in the Indian labour law. Whereas EEOC in USA has a function to
investigate and litigate cases, which is missing to a great extent in the
Indian labour law. Independent enforcement agencies would be a substantial
boost towards workplace equality in India.
UK Equality Act,
2010
The United Kingdom has an all-inclusive
anti-discrimination law, the Equality Act, 2010, which includes all forms of
discrimination against sex, pregnancy, maternity and gender reassignment in
relation to recruitment, pay, promotion, dismissal and harassment, as well as
direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation.[33]
One of the cards the Act played is its remedies. The
Act also sets duties on public authorities to promote equality, meaning that
courts are able to award unlimited compensation for cases of discrimination,
thus giving employers a strong incentive to comply with the law.[34]
The Act also places duties on public authorities to promote equality, which
also means that equality aspects are integrated into the policymaking of public
authorities.
Two lessons for India are clear from the Equality Act,
first to bring together many laws in one Act, and second to provide more robust
remedies. The present framework in India is fragmented among various statutes
which causes inconsistencies and issues in implementation. Consolidation,
coupled with robust remedies, could enhance effectiveness.
EU Directives on
Gender Equality
EU gender equality law is comprised in a complex
package of directives, including Directive 2006/54/EC, which unifies EU gender
equality law, and Directive (EU) 2024/1500, which enhances equality bodies.[35]
These directives prohibit direct and indirect discrimination in employment,
pay, and occupational social security, and require equality of pay for equal
work or work of equal value.
The burden-shifting mechanism is a unique element of
EU law. This is based on the principle that it is the responsibility of the
employer to prove that there was no discrimination once a prima facie case has
been established, which gives employees the freedom and holds them accountable.[36]
The EU also has legislation that places a high priority on pay transparency,
and mandates that employers be transparent about pay structures to ensure there
are no hidden pay differences.
Similar
mechanisms can be adopted in India. The issue of burden shifting would work to
rectify the difficulties that employees encounter in establishing a case of
discrimination; the issue of pay transparency would highlight wage differences
and force remedial steps.
Lessons for India
India's constitutional and legislative framework is in
line with international standards, although it is not always adhered to. India
needs to reconcile personal laws with the equality provisions under CEDAW.
India should enhance its capacity to enforce ILO conventions in non-formal
sectors and tackle the structural obstacles. India has to have independent
enforcement agencies with investigative and litigative powers under Title VII.
The Indian government should streamline its existing laws, which are fragmented,
and implement more effective penalties on the basis of the UK Equality Act.
India needs to adopt pay transparency and burden-shifting from EU directives.
All of these lessons point to the importance of
substantive equality and the need of India to go beyond formal equality. Gender
discrimination is not only a legal matter, but also a socio-cultural problem
that needs a holistic solution. International tools offer a map for India to
work towards a truly equal workplace, both in terms of rights-holding and
action.
CONCLUSION
Analyzing the issue of gender discrimination in the
workplace in India through the lens of the law is a complex endeavor that
involves considering the various laws, their interpretation by courts of law,
and the obligations placed on India under the various international conventions
and instruments that address this issue. Equality is the most fundamental
principle of the Indian Constitution and the normativity of equality is stated
in the constitutional articles of 14, 15 and 16. The provisions along with the
Directive Principles of Article 39, 42 and 43 which emphasise substantive
equality, with protective provisions for women workers, are a vision of
substantive equality. However, in practice constitutional aspirations are not
always realised due to a lack of enforcement powers, socio-cultural constraints
and structural inequalities.
The enactment of the statutory provisions such as the
Equal Remuneration Act (now incorporated into the Code on Wages), the Maternity
Benefit Act and the POSH Act, are indicative of the legislative action to
implement constitutional principles. These laws include those on wage parity,
workplace safety and maternity protection, and the Transgender Persons
(Protection of Rights) Act extends beyond gender binary. The effectiveness of
these is however reduced because of the fragmentation in enforcement, weak institutional
mechanisms and a low level of awareness. Judicial interventions have played a
crucial role in filling these gaps; Vishaka v State of Rajasthan, Air India v
Nargesh Meerza and Charu Khurana v Union of India were some of the notable
cases that have broadened the definition of equality in the workplace. The
judiciary has repeatedly stated that the right to equality is more than a
formal right, it is a substantive right, where corrective action must be taken
against any discrimination.
The international discourse is enriched by
international frameworks. India's ratification of the CEDAW and the ILO
conventions places its own obligations in the global context and places clear
demands on it in terms of equal pay, maternity protection and
non-discrimination. Analysis of U.S. Title VII, the UK Equality Act and EU
directives show the significance of a robust enforcement regime, broader
legislation, pay transparency and burden-shifting strategies. These models
illustrate the need for both normative commitments and institutional capacity
and effective remedies for equality in the workplace. The lessons for India are
clear: harmonize the implementation of personal laws with equality, increase
enforcement of equality in informal sectors, create independent equality bodies
and implement measures of transparency to reveal wage gaps.
This is because the gender discrimination in the
workplace is ongoing, highlighting the need for a holistic approach. It takes
more than laws to break down deep-rooted hierarchies: cultural change,
awareness-raising and corporate accountability are all important. The
intersectionality of the various forms of discrimination should be
acknowledged, and discrimination can occur as a combination of caste, class,
disability and sexual orientation. Substantive equality requires that changes
to the status quo are aimed at these overlapping vulnerabilities and extends to
all marginalized groups.
Finally, the concept of equality at work in India is a
constitutional commitment and moral obligation. It is an integral part of the
achievement of dignity, autonomy and justice in a democratic society. Equality
can only be accomplished if there is continued legislative creativity, judicial
creativity, and a commitment of the people. The constitutional vision of India,
coupled with international commitments and comparative experiences, has a solid
framework. The challenge is to put this in practice in the real world, ensuring
the same opportunities, equal treatment and dignity at work for all
individuals, regardless of gender.
The conclusion confirms that workplace gender
discrimination is not only a matter of law, but of society as a whole and hence
requires a more holistic approach to reform. There is a need to increase
enforcement, ensure legal harmonisation, adopt intersectionality and shift
cultural attitudes. Workplaces must be places of dignity, fairness and justice
spaces for all and India can only realize this if it is equal.
[1] Assistant Professor of Law, School
of Law, MGSU, Bikaner
[2] INDIA CONST. pmbl.
[3] INDIA CONST. art. 14, 15(1),
15(3), 16, 39(a), 39(d), 42.
[4] Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Dec. 18, 1979, 1249 U.N.T.S. 13.
[5] Equal Remuneration Act, No. 25 of
1976 (India); Code on Wages, No. 29 of 2019 (India).
[6] Maternity Benefit Act, No. 53 of
1961 (India).
[7] Sexual Harassment of Women at
Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, No. 14 of 2013 (India).
Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, No. 40 of 2019 (India).
[8] C.B. Muthamma v. Union of India,
(1979) 4 S.C.C. 260 (India).
[9] Air India v. Nargesh Meerza,
(1981) 4 S.C.C. 335 (India).
[10] Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd.
v. Audrey D’Costa, (1987) 2 S.C.C. 469 (India).
[11] Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan,
(1997) 6 S.C.C. 241 (India).
[12] Charu Khurana v. Union of India,
(2015) 1 S.C.C. 192 (India).
[13] Aureliano Fernandes v. State of
Goa, (2023) 2 S.C.C. 1 (India).
[14] World Economic Forum, Global
Gender Gap Report 2023.
[15] ILO Convention No. 111,
Discrimination (Employment and Occupation), June 25, 1958.
[16] Sexual Harassment of Women at
Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, No. 14 of 2013 (India).
[17] E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil
Nadu, (1974) 4 S.C.C. 3 (India).
[18] State of Madras v. Champakam
Dorairajan, A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 226 (India).
[19] Indra Sawhney v. Union of India,
(1992) Supp. (3) S.C.C. 217 (India).
[20] C.B. Muthamma v. Union of India,
(1979) 4 S.C.C. 260 (India).
[21] Air India v. Nargesh Meerza,
(1981) 4 S.C.C. 335 (India).
[22] Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Dec. 18, 1979, 1249 U.N.T.S. 13.
[23] Ministry of External Affairs,
Government of India, India’s Ratification of CEDAW (1993).
[24] CEDAW art. 11.
[25] Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan,
(1997) 6 S.C.C. 241 (India).
[26] Apparel Export Promotion Council
v. A.K. Chopra, (1999) 1 S.C.C. 759 (India).
[27] International Labour Organization,
Equal Remuneration Convention, No. 100, June 29, 1951.
[28] International Labour Organization,
Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, No. 111, June 25, 1958.
[29] World Economic Forum, Global
Gender Gap Report 2023.
[30] Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title
VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e.
[31] Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, Title VII Enforcement Guidelines.
[32] Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477
U.S. 57 (1986).
[33] Bostock v. Clayton County, 590
U.S. ___ (2020).
[34] Equality Act 2010, c. 15 (U.K.).
[35] Directive 2006/54/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council, July 5, 2006.
[36] Directive (EU) 2024/1500,
Strengthening Equality Bodies, Apr. 2024.
How to Cite This Article
DR. PRADEEP KACHCHAWA, GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE: A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE IN INDIA., White Black Legal – International Law Journal, ISSN: 2581-8503, Vol. 4, Issue 1, September 2026, pp. 541-554, DOI Link: https://www.doi-ds.org/doilink/09.2026-86349287/GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE: A LEGAL PE. Available at: https://www.whiteblacklegal.co.in/public/details/gender-discrimination-in-the-workplace-a-legal-perspective-in-india
Author & Publication Record
Authors: DR. PRADEEP KACHCHAWA
Registration ID: 107078 | Published Paper ID: WBL7078
Year: Sep- 2026 | Volume: 4 | Issue: 1
Approved ISSN: 2581-8503 | Country: Delhi, India
Page No.: 541-554
Full Text Preview
Open in New Tab
Copied