Supreme Court slams trade unionism for stunting industrial growth and closing factories

“Of course, exploitation is there, undoubtedly. But the means should have been different to stop that exploitation. People should have been made more aware of their individual rights. People should have been made more skilled instead of using them as manual labour; there could be several other reforms which should have been done,” Justice Bagchi said.

Among others, the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by Penn Thozhilargal Sangam and other trade unions also sought a direction to ensure minimum wages for domestic workers. Taking it up, the CJI at the very outset remarked, “Every household will be in litigation.”

Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran said, “In Singapore, you cannot hire a domestic maid unless you register that person, (give) weekly off, wages etc.’

The CJI said, “Sometimes in our anxiety to bring a non-discriminatory perspective through legislative means, we unwillingly lead to further exploitation. Look at the need for employment in this country. It’s a question of demand and supply. Demand is far lower than supply… People are being exploited like anything. If you fix minimum wages, people will refuse to hire, and this will further contribute to their hardship.”

Raju said, “On the other hand, 15 states and 2 Union Territories have seen the logic, and they have included.” To which, the CJI said, “These are basically just to gain some kind of popularity without knowing the real truth.”

But Raju said, “These are workers’ unions, not some meddlesome outsiders. These are domestic workers unions registered under the Trade Unions Act”.

‘They are exploiting these people’

CJI Kant then expressed his opinion on trade unions.

“See the other consequences. These trade union leaders will leave these people in the lurch. People will stop hiring domestic help. In all major cities, service provider agencies have already taken over. You don’t want to engage a driver or domestic help. You only use the services of these big entities. And what are they doing? They are exploiting these people,” CJI Kant said.

Recounting from personal experience, the CJI said the Supreme Court paid an agency for hiring a particular set of skilled employees, paying Rs 40,000, and “actually those poor girls got only Rs 19,000”.

“The moment you break this trust between the domestic help and the family who is engaging them, there are millions of families who engage a domestic help and treat them as part of the extended family… They live in the same house and eat the same food together because the element of trust is there.

“If you start hiring them through these agencies, what will happen? The elderly are harassed. Suddenly, you will find that some heinous offences are committed. Who has committed? Some domestic workers are hired through the agency because that human bond is missing in those cases,” CJI said.

While sympathising with the concerns expressed by the petitioners, Justice Bagchi, however, said “it is not as if there is no safety net”. “To say they are left in the lurch, your pleadings themselves acknowledge that the Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act takes care of the basic needs of medical health and other consequential benefits.”

The CJI said, “If you fix a minimum age, these very so-called leaders will make sure that every household is dragged into litigation”.

The bench disposed of the plea, saying that granting the relief sought would essentially require the court to enter the realm of legislative policy.

Noting that the issue is under active consideration by various state governments, the court expressed hope that they would develop a mechanism to improve the conditions of domestic help and prevent their alleged exploitation.