The Supreme Court flagged trade unionism as a major factor behind industrial stagnation, with Chief Justice Surya Kant observing that union activities led to closures of industries. He remarked that resistance to work and aggressive “flag-bearing unions” hampered economic and industrial growth.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court highlighted trade unionism as a significant contributor to industrial stagnation in the country, with Chief Justice Surya Kant noting that the activities of trade unions have resulted in the closure of many industrial units across India.
Questioning the influence of trade unions on economic growth, the Chief Justice remarked that several traditional industries have ceased operations due to actions from what he referred to as “flag-bearing unions.” He pointed out that resistance to work and aggressive union leadership have greatly hindered industrial development.
While recognizing the problem of labor exploitation, the Chief Justice emphasized that alternative reforms, such as enhancing workers’ skills and raising awareness of individual rights, should have been prioritized over disruptive union practices.
These comments were made during a hearing of a public interest litigation filed by Penn Thozhilargal Sangam and other trade unions, which sought welfare measures for domestic workers, including their inclusion under minimum wage notifications.
At the outset, the Chief Justice expressed hesitation about entertaining the petition, warning that such measures might lead to widespread litigation involving individual households.
Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, representing the petitioners, pointed out that several countries, including Singapore, require the registration of domestic workers and ensure minimum wages and weekly holidays.
In response, the Chief Justice cautioned that well-intentioned welfare initiatives could produce unintended side effects, including further exploitation. He observed that setting minimum wages without taking employment demand into account might discourage households from hiring domestic help, ultimately worsening conditions for workers.
When Ramachandran asserted that collective bargaining was effective and clarified that the petitioners were registered trade unions, the Chief Justice reiterated his criticisms of trade unions, prompting the senior counsel to request that broad generalizations be avoided.
However, the Chief Justice redirected the discussion towards employment agencies, labeling them as the true exploiters of domestic workers. Highlighting a specific case, he noted that when the Supreme Court itself engaged workers through an agency at a cost of Rs 40,000 per worker, the employees only received Rs 19,000.
Also Read: Karnataka Implements Supreme Court’s ‘Right to Die with Dignity’ Order
He remarked that agency-based hiring frequently undermines the trust-based relationship traditionally shared between domestic workers and employers, which could have serious social implications. The Chief Justice also warned that enforcing minimum wages through union pressure could drag households into legal disputes.
In response, Ramachandran argued that inadequate wages amounted to bonded labor under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bandhua Mukti Morcha, claiming that excluding domestic workers from minimum wage protections violated Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution.
The bench ultimately decided not to entertain the petition, determining that the relief sought amounted to a request for legislative action, which is beyond the Court’s jurisdiction. The petition was disposed of with a note encouraging States to consider the grievances noted by domestic workers’ unions.