The Supreme Court of India refused to mandate minimum wages for domestic workers but urged states to develop mechanisms for their protection under existing laws, highlighting judicial limits and concerns over litigation.

Supreme Court Rejects PIL on Domestic Workers' Minimum Wages

In a significant ruling, India's Supreme Court has declined to entertain a public interest litigation seeking mandatory minimum wages and a comprehensive legal framework for domestic workers across the country.

The bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, emphasized that the judiciary cannot encroach on the legislative domain by directing the Centre or states to amend laws or enact new ones.

This decision came during a hearing on a petition filed by Penn Thozhilalargal Sangam, a union representing domestic workers, which argued that non-payment of minimum wages violates fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution.

Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, representing the petitioners, pointed out the vulnerability of these workers, mostly women in the unorganised sector, and noted inconsistencies in state-level notifications for minimum wages despite uniform employment conditions nationwide.

The court acknowledged the real plight of millions of domestic helps facing exploitation, including through employment agencies, but stopped short of issuing enforceable directions.

Instead, it suggested that petitioners approach Union and state governments directly to push for policy changes.

The bench expressed hope that states are actively considering suitable mechanisms to prevent exploitation and provide welfare, as indicated in ongoing correspondence.

This stance reflects the court's view that while protection is needed, judicial intervention in policy-making is inappropriate.

Concerns Over Litigation and Employment Impact

A key reason for the court's refusal was the potential fallout from enforcing minimum wages.

The judges warned that fixing such wages could lead households to avoid hiring, exacerbating unemployment in a country where job supply far outstrips demand.

They highlighted fears that trade unions might drag every household into litigation, turning homes into legal battlegrounds.

When a minimum wage is enforced, these unions will ensure that every household is dragged into litigation. Look at the need for employment in this country, demand is far less as compared to the supply, you fix minimum wages, people will refuse to hire and this will further generate hardship.

The bench also critiqued trade unions broadly, blaming them for past industrial closures and hindering growth by prioritizing confrontation over skill development.

Justices stressed that workers should be skilled rather than relegated to manual labor, and pointed to existing safety nets like the Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act, which covers several welfare aspects for such employees.

Despite these concerns, the court recognized collective bargaining as a right but deemed the petition's prayers largely legislative in nature.

Existing Protections and Path Forward

Domestic workers in India operate in a largely unregulated space, often without fixed hours, leave, or fair pay, making them prone to abuse.

While some states have notified minimum wages, others lag, creating uneven protection.

The Supreme Court noted prior judgments highlighting their hardships and failed legislative attempts at a national law.

Internationally, countries like Singapore mandate safeguards including minimum conditions before employing domestic staff, a point raised by the petitioners.

In India, the court refused declarations of rights violations without enforceable backing, calling them mere lip service.

It disposed of the PIL but encouraged advocacy at government levels, optimistic about state-level mechanisms emerging.

This ruling underscores the separation of powers, leaving reform to lawmakers while validating the workers' struggles.

In summary, the Supreme Court has upheld legislative primacy by rejecting direct mandates for domestic workers' minimum wages, citing litigation risks and employment concerns, yet urged states to evolve protective mechanisms and affirmed existing welfare schemes.

• Tags
• #Law
• #Labour
• #Judiciary