Trade union leaders responsible for stalling industrial growth: CJI

Supreme Court says trade union leaders have stalled industrial growth, cautions that fixing minimum wages for domestic workers could worsen unemployment and hardship

The Supreme Court on Thursday came down on trade unions, saying that its leaders are responsible for stalling industrial growth in the country.

 

“How many industrial units in the country have been closed thanks to trade unions? Let us know the realities. All traditional industries in the country, all because of these jhanda unions have been closed, all throughout the country. They don't want to work,” Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Surya Kant said. The Bench also comprised Justice Joymalya Bagchi.

 

“These trade union leaders are largely responsible for stopping industrial growth in the country. Of course exploitation is there, but there are means to address exploitation. People should have been made more aware of their individual rights, people should have been made more skilled, there were several other reforms which should have been done,” the CJI further said.

 

The Bench was hearing a public interest petition filed by Penn Thozhilargal Sangam and other trade unions seeking welfare measures for domestic workers. The petitioners, among other things, sought to bring domestic workers under the minimum wages notification.

 

At the outset, the apex court expressed reservations about judicially mandating such measures. It cautioned that extending minimum wage enforcement to household employment could result in widespread litigation involving private homes.

 

During the hearing, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for the petitioners, relied on international practices. He argued that domestic work should be regulated through registration, mandatory weekly rest, and wage safeguards.

 

The court, however, warned that well-intentioned reforms can sometimes have unintended consequences, particularly in a labour market marked by high unemployment.

 

The CJI noted that fixing wages without accounting for demand and supply could lead households to stop employing domestic help altogether. This would worsen hardship rather than alleviating it.

 

The petitioners emphasised the role of collective bargaining and asserted that the unions were bona fide and registered bodies. But the court cautioned against generalised assumptions that unionisation automatically benefits workers.

 

The CJI said that, in practice, large employment agencies operating in major cities had emerged as the primary source of exploitation. They often retained a substantial portion of the wages paid by employers.

 

Referring to an institutional experience, the Chief Justice pointed out that even as organisations pay agencies significantly higher amounts for skilled domestic services, workers frequently receive less than half that sum.

 

He observed that replacing direct employment relationships with agency-mediated arrangements erodes trust between employers and workers and can generate further social and legal complications.

 

"In our anxiety for reforms, to bring something non-discriminatory through the legislative means, we sometimes unwittingly cause further exploitation. You fix a minimum wage....look at the need for employment in the country. It is a question of demand and supply. You fix minimum wages, people will refuse to hire and will cause further hardship," CJI Kant said.

 

Ramachandran argued that paying domestic workers inadequate wages amounted to forced labour under constitutional jurisprudence and contended that their exclusion from minimum wage notifications violated Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution. He submitted that while a few states had notified minimum wages for domestic workers, several others had not, despite the nature of domestic employment remaining uniform across states.

 

The unions also relied on a 2025 judgment authored by Justice Kant that had asked the Union government to examine the feasibility of a comprehensive law for domestic workers’ welfare. According to the petitioners, the Centre later took the position that the matter fell within the domain of states, none of which subsequently framed a scheme, prompting the present petition.

 

The Bench ultimately held that the reliefs sought would amount to directing the legislature to enact laws, which falls outside the Court’s jurisdiction. While disposing of the petition, the Court urged state governments to independently examine the concerns raised by domestic workers and consider appropriate policy responses within their legislative competence.