SC refuses to issue directions to Centre, states for welfare measures of domestic helps
The apex court also observed that trade unionism was largely responsible for stalling industrial growth in the country.
“How many industrial units have been shut down in the country thanks to unions? Let us know the facts. All traditional industries in the country have been shut down across the country, all because of these ‘jhanda’ unions. They do not want to work. These union leaders are largely responsible for stopping industrial growth in the country,” said Chief Justice Surya Kant.
“Of course there is exploitation, but there are ways to eliminate exploitation. People had to be made more aware of their individual rights, people had to be made more resourceful, there were other reforms that had to be made as well,” the CJI said.
A bench comprising CJI Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, while acknowledging the “situation” of millions of domestic helpers across the country, maintained that the judiciary cannot encroach on legislative space to compel the enactment of laws.
In its order, the bench said: “No enforceable ordinance or order can be passed unless the legislature is asked to enact a suitable law. We are afraid that no such direction should be issued by this court.”
However, he asked the petitioners, including Penn Thozhilalargal Sangam, a domestic workers’ union, to highlight the difficulty of domestic relief to the states and the Union to take an appropriate decision in this regard. While disposing of the PIL, the bench said, “We observe that the petitioners may continue to highlight the plight of domestic aid and influence stakeholders to make a final appeal on this issue and the correspondence shows that this is being actively considered by the states and we hope that an appropriate mechanism will be put in place to assist them and prevent misuse.” he said.
The petition sought, among other solutions, the recognition of non-payment of minimum wage to domestic workers as a violation of fundamental rights and the implementation of minimum wage regimes in the states.
Appearing on behalf of the petitioning organisation, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran stated that domestic workers, predominantly women, are among the most vulnerable sections of the unorganized workforce, lacking effective legal protection.
Drawing comparisons with international standards, he noted that in many Asian regions, such as Singapore, domestic workers cannot be employed without legal safeguards, including mandatory leave and minimum service conditions.
However, the CJI expressed reservations about judicial intervention in matters related to economic and labor policy.
Warning against the unintended consequences of well-intentioned legislative measures, the CJI noted that “out of our concern to bring something non-discriminatory to the legislative front, sometimes something undesirable comes along which is then exploited”.
“Once minimum wages are fixed, people may refuse to hire. Every household will be dragged into litigation,” he said, adding that union models are not always successful across sectors.
Despite the exploitation of workers, the CJI said these labor unions were creating hurdles in the industrialization and growth of the country.
“Tell me how many industries have been able to recruit successfully using unions? Look, all the sugarcane unions have closed down,” the CJI said.
The CJI also said such a move could turn every Indian home into a legal battleground.
“When the minimum wage is implemented, these unions will ensure that every household is dragged into the lawsuit,” he said.
Responding to the argument that collective bargaining could address these concerns, Justice Bagchi noted that domestic workers were already covered under existing welfare frameworks.
While acknowledging that the petitioner’s concerns were “well received”, he said: “It’s not as if there is no safety net. The Unorganized Workers’ Social Security Act addresses many issues.”
The board also red-flagged the role of employment agencies in the exploitation of workers.
When the petitioner sought a declaration that non-payment of minimum wages violated Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution, the CJI said such declarations would amount to “lip service” unless backed by applicable mechanisms.
“All your prayers are legislative in nature. Unless the legislature is asked to pass a suitable law, no effective ordinance can be passed, which we fear this court will not be able to do,” the bench said. he said.
Ramachandran said some states have notified minimum wages for domestic workers, while others have not done so even though domestic employment remains the same across the country.
It also relied on the Supreme Court decision of January 29, 2025, in which the court highlighted the plight of domestic workers and noted repeated but unsuccessful legislative attempts to enact a comprehensive law.
