SC Declines Wage Law Direction for Domestic Workers

 New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a comprehensive legal framework and enforcement of minimum wages for domestic workers, holding that it cannot issue a writ directing the Centre and states to amend or enact laws.

The apex court observed that while the plight of domestic workers is real, the judiciary cannot encroach upon the legislative domain. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said no enforceable decree could be passed unless the legislature itself enacted a suitable law.

“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,” the Bench said in its order.

During the hearing, the Chief Justice made strong remarks on trade unionism, stating that it had played a significant role in hampering industrial growth in the country. He said several traditional industries had shut down due to trade union activities and noted that industrial stagnation could not be ignored while discussing labour reforms.

While acknowledging the exploitation faced by millions of domestic workers, the court said the solution lay not only in legislation but also in increasing awareness of individual rights, improving skills and carrying out broader reforms. The Bench observed that exploitation existed, but there were alternative means to address it beyond judicial directions to legislate.

The court, however, permitted the petitioners, including Penn Thozhilalargal Sangam, a domestic workers’ union, to approach the Union and State governments to highlight the issue and seek appropriate policy decisions.

The petition had sought recognition of non-payment of minimum wages to domestic workers as a violation of fundamental rights and uniform enforcement of minimum wage regimes across States.

The Bench also flagged the role of service provider agencies, describing them as the “real exploiters” of domestic workers in urban centres. The Chief Justice cited instances where agencies charged employers substantial sums while paying workers significantly less, calling such practices exploitative.