NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to direct the government to formally include domestic workers in the scheduled employments under labour laws, observing that “regressive methods” of trade unions had been largely responsible for stalling industrial growth in the country and forcing the closure of factories.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justice Joymalya Bagchi said that courts were extremely circumspect in matters involving economic and labour policy and could not step into the legislative domain by directing governments to enact or expand statutory frameworks.
At the same time, the bench acknowledged the vulnerability and harassment faced by domestic workers and “impressed upon” states and Union territories to evolve a “suitable mechanism” for their welfare, while making it clear that no enforceable mandate could be issued by the court.
The petition had been filed jointly by 10 organisations representing domestic workers and informal sector labourers from different states, seeking directions to treat domestic work as scheduled employment, thereby entitling workers to minimum wages, fixed working hours and social security benefits. Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran appeared for the petitioners.
During the hearing, the bench repeatedly flagged what it described as the damaging role of trade unions in India’s industrial landscape.
“These jhanda unions have left thousands of labourers in the lurch and without employment eventually,” remarked the bench, pointing to factory closures and industrial stagnation.
“These leaders do not want to work themselves. These trade union leaders are mostly responsible for stopping the industrial growth in the country. Their regressive methods have been responsible,” it added.
The bench referred to the closure of sugarcane and other industrial units, observing that aggressive protest methods had often backfired on workers themselves by driving employers out of business.
“Tell me how many industries have been able to hire successfully using the trade unions,” the CJI asked, adding that labour militancy frequently resulted in factories shutting down and workers losing livelihoods altogether.
When Ramachandran countered that collective bargaining was a constitutional right and urged the court not to generalise, the bench responded that while harassment of workers was a real concern, the methods adopted to address it mattered. “No doubt, there is harassment too, but the methods should have been different. People should have been made aware of their rights and the mode of protest should have been different,” it said.
The court’s remarks come against the backdrop of India’s long history of industrial unrest, particularly in labour-intensive sectors such as textiles, sugar, jute and manufacturing, where militant trade unionism has often been cited as a factor contributing to factory closures, relocation of units, and informalisation of labour.
Over the decades, several industrial belts, from textile mills in Mumbai to sugar factories in parts of north India, have witnessed shutdowns following prolonged labour disputes, leaving thousands of workers without alternative employment. Successive governments have argued that rigid labour practices and adversarial union strategies discouraged investment and accelerated the shift towards contract labour and outsourcing.
Responding to the PIL, the bench expressed reservations about extending statutory minimum wages and rigid labour regulation to private households, warning that it could lead to unintended consequences.
“In our anxiety to bring something non-discriminatory on the legislative front, something undesirable is brought about which is exploited…Once minimum wages are fixed, people will refuse to hire,” it pointed out.
The court cautioned that fixing wages through judicial or legislative fiat could break the trust-based relationship between domestic workers and families. “The moment you break the trust between domestic helps and families, they might lose their jobs. The human element and relationship will start missing once you start hiring these helps from agencies,” the bench said.
It also warned that such regulation could open the floodgates of litigation. “The moment this is fixed, these so-called leaders will ensure that every household is drawn into litigation,” it added.
Ramachandran argued that the petitioners were only seeking a declaration of a basic minimum wage and pointed out that at least 15 states had already included domestic workers within the ambit of minimum wage notifications. He urged the court to enquire why other states and UTs had excluded nearly eight crore domestic workers from the social security net.
The bench, however, questioned why states had not enacted legislation if they believed domestic workers should be formally covered. “If so, why have they not framed legislation? Why are they depending on notifications and executive directions?” it asked.
Rejecting the prayer for judicial intervention, the bench underscored the limits of judicial power in economic policymaking. “Courts are very apprehensive when it comes to an economic policy. Unless and until we see a complete denial of a fundamental right, we are very sceptical of entering an economic domain,” the bench said.
In its order, the court noted that the reliefs effectively required it to direct the inclusion of domestic workers in scheduled employment — something it could not do. “No enforceable decree or order can be passed by the court unless the legislature is asked to enact a suitable law, and such a direction ought not to be issued by this court,” the order said.
Disposing of the petition, the bench said petitioner organisations were free to continue highlighting the plight of domestic workers before governments and other stakeholders.
“We hope and trust that a suitable mechanism shall be evolved in each state for the betterment of domestic help and to prevent their alleged exploitation,” it added, while urging states and UTs to consider the grievances raised in the representations.
In January 2025, the court had directed the Union labour ministry and others to constitute an expert committee to examine whether a dedicated legal framework was required for domestic workers.
In its report submitted in July 2025, the committee said a separate law was unnecessary, noting that domestic workers were already covered under the four consolidated labour codes — the Code on Wages, the Code on Industrial Relations, the Code on Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions, and the Code on Social Security.
About the Author
