SC: Minimum wage mandate without Legislation could hurt Workers

The Supreme Court, through a bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, refused to entertain a public interest litigation filed by domestic worker unions seeking minimum wages and statutory protections, observing that mandating such reforms could inadvertently trigger widespread litigation and exacerbate exploitation.

The PIL, filed by Penn Thozhilargal Sangam and other unions, sought to bring domestic workers under minimum wages notifications and safeguard their rights. Petitioners argued that states’ inaction violated Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution and cited prior Supreme Court directions in Ajay Mallik v. State of Uttarakhand for legislative action. Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran highlighted global best practices, asserting that unregulated domestic work led to systemic exploitation.

The bench noted that while the intentions were genuine, the proposed remedies could produce unintended consequences. CJI Kant expressed concerns that enforcing minimum wages via judicial direction could reduce employment opportunities and push households into prolonged litigation, pointing to agencies and not unions as the primary exploiters.

CJI Kant emphasized, “These trade union leaders, they are largely responsible for stopping industrial growth in the country,” while cautioning that imposing reforms without legislative backing could worsen conditions for domestic workers. The bench observed that agencies often siphon wages from employees, citing cases where workers received less than half of the payment made by employers.

The Court clarified that it cannot issue mandamus to enact laws and urged the States to examine the grievances, directing the petitioners to seek remedies through legislative or executive channels.