The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea seeking recognition of minimum wages for domestic workers as a fundamental right, saying such issues fall within the domain of State governments. The Court warned that mandatory wage fixation could lead to widespread litigation and discourage households from hiring domestic help.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to hear a petition that asked the Court to declare that domestic workers have a fundamental right to be paid minimum wages. The case was filed by Penn Thozhilalargal Sangam and others vs Union of India and others.
A Bench of the Supreme Court of India, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, said that issues like fixing and implementing minimum wages for domestic workers should be decided by the State governments, not by the Court.
ALSO READ: Telangana Considers Legislation for Social Security and Protection of Domestic Workers
The Bench expressed serious concerns that making minimum wages compulsory for domestic workers could actually harm them. The Court feared that such a move might result in excessive litigation and discourage households from employing domestic workers at all.
Chief Justice Surya Kant remarked,
“Every household will be in litigation … Once minimum wages are fixed, people will refuse to hire. Tell me how many industries have been able to hire successfully using the trade unions. See all sugarcane unions closed … When a minimum wage is enforced, these unions will ensure that every household is dragged into litigation.”
The CJI further explained that although it may sound appealing to argue that domestic workers’ rights under Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution are violated without a mandatory minimum wage, the real-world impact could be damaging. He warned that overactive trade unions might worsen the situation for workers instead of helping them.
He added,
“Please examine the consequences. Trade unions will leave these people and they have nowhere to go.”
The Bench also raised concerns about the role of employment agencies and the possibility of wage exploitation. The Court pointed out that even when minimum wages are fixed, a large portion of the money could be taken away by agencies instead of reaching the workers.
Chief Justice Kant shared an example from within the Supreme Court itself, stating,
“These employment agencies exploit these people. The Supreme Court was paying agencies for skilled people, and we paid ₹40,000 per worker. The poor girls got ₹19,000. This is how the trust is broken. Millions engage domestic help. When you hire them through agencies, what will happen? All these heinous offences by domestic workers happen when they are engaged by agencies and not through a human connect,”
After considering all aspects, the Court suggested that the petitioners should approach the State authorities rather than seek judicial intervention. The Bench noted that the reliefs sought in the petition would require changes in law, which is the job of the legislature, not the judiciary.
The Court said,
“We find that on a combined reading of the prayers, no enforceable decree or order can be passed unless the legislature is asked to enact a suitable law. Such a direction, we are afraid, ought not to be issued by this court. We observe that petitioners should continue to highlight the plight of the domestic helps and impress upon the stakeholders to take a final call in relation thereto … Correspondence shows it is under active consideration by States and we are hopeful that a suitable mechanism shall be deployed for their help and to prevent exploitation. Writ is disposed of with a request to the States to look into the grievances highlighted by the petitioner organisation.”
The petition had specifically asked the Court to declare that domestic workers have a fundamental right to minimum wages under Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution. It also challenged the exclusion of domestic workers from the Minimum Wages Act and the Code of Wages, 2019.
Appearing for the non-government organisations and associations that filed the petition, Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran referred to international practices and said,
“In Asia, Singapore, you cannot hire a domestic worker without giving leaves, etc.”
However, the Court was not convinced by the argument that domestic workers in India have no legal protection at all. Justice Joymalya Bagchi responded by saying,
“It is not that there is no safety net. To say that they are left in lurch – you are itself saying that the Unorganised Workers Social Welfare Act is itself taking care of it … Courts are very careful when it comes to economic policies.”
Ramachandran then clarified that the petitioners were seeking clear legal recognition of minimum wage rights for domestic workers. He argued,
“We are asking for a declaration that the non-payment of minimum wages is a violation of fundamental rights.”
To this, Chief Justice Kant replied firmly,
“Such a declaration is only lip service if not implemented.”
The CJI further explained that the Supreme Court may not be the correct forum to resolve such issues, especially when the prayers made are legislative in nature.
He stated,
“All your prayers are legislative in nature. You want a decree which can be enforced and not just an empty one. Inclusion of domestic workers in the schedule will require amendment, but you have spoken about exclusion. How can that be?”
In response, Ramachandran said,
“We are seeking a notice to the States that have not enforced the minimum wages, while some States have done it already. The character of domestic employment does not change from State to State. Union says it is for the States to take a call.”
However, the Court remained unconvinced and declined to interfere, making it clear that the matter should be handled at the State level.
ALOS READ: Prajwal Revanna Appeals Life Sentence in High Court Over Domestic Worker Rape Conviction
Chief Justice Kant finally remarked,
“If you think some States have taken a decision, then you can approach some of the High Courts and see.”
With these observations, the Supreme Court disposed of the petition, leaving it open to the petitioners to continue their efforts before State governments or approach High Courts where necessary. The petition was filed through advocate Shreya Munoth.
Case Tile:
Penn Thozhilalargal Sangam and ors v. Union of India and ors
Click Here to Read More Reports On Electoral Roll Revision
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
