All traditional industries in the country have been shut down because of these “jhanda” trade unions, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) said. He repeated that traditional industries across the country had suffered due to the role played by such unions.
“How many industrial units in the country have closed because of trade unions? We must look at the reality. Traditional industries across the country have shut down because of these jhanda unions. They do not want to work. Trade union leaders are largely responsible for stopping industrial growth in the country. Yes, exploitation exists, but there are ways to address exploitation,” CJI Kant said.
He added that people should be made more aware of their individual rights and should be given better skills. He also said several important reforms should have been implemented earlier, as reported by Live Law.
A bench comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Penn Thozhilargal Sangam and other unions. The petition sought welfare measures for domestic workers. As soon as the case was taken up, CJI Kant expressed reluctance to hear it, stating that “every household will be in litigation.”
Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for the petitioners, argued that countries like Singapore require domestic workers to be registered and guarantee weekly holidays and minimum wages. He said collective bargaining was an effective way to protect workers’ rights.
He further submitted that domestic workers were deliberately excluded due to executive inaction. This, he argued, resulted in violations of Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution. Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Bandhua Mukti Morcha, Ramachandran said that inadequate wages amounted to begar or bonded labour.
The Chief Justice, however, expressed strong concerns. He warned that the push to introduce non-discriminatory reforms through legislation could sometimes increase exploitation instead of reducing it.
“In our anxiety to bring reforms through legislation, we sometimes unknowingly create more exploitation. If you fix minimum wages, you must consider the need for employment in the country. It is a matter of demand and supply. If you fix minimum wages, people may refuse to hire, leading to more hardship,” CJI Kant said.
When Ramachandran objected to what he called generalisations and pointed out that the petitioners were registered trade unions, the Chief Justice responded that the real exploitation was happening through employment agencies. He said these agencies had taken control of domestic labour markets in major cities.
“In all major cities, service provider agencies have taken over. These large entities are exploiting workers. They are the real exploiters,” CJI Kant said. He added that trade union leaders often “leave these people in the lurch” and warned that excessive regulation could force households into legal disputes.
To explain his point, the Chief Justice referred to his own experience. He said that when the Supreme Court hired workers through an agency at a cost of Rs 40,000 per worker, the workers themselves received only around Rs 19,000.
“I have personally and officially seen this. When trust between domestic workers and employers is broken, millions of families who treat domestic workers as part of their extended family are affected. When hiring is done through agencies, that human connection is lost,” he said. He cautioned that such situations could even lead to serious offences.
From the beginning, the bench indicated it was not inclined to entertain the plea. It observed that enforcing minimum wages through court directions could result in “every household being in litigation.” The petitioners relied on a 2025 judgment authored by Justice Kant in Ajay Mallik v State of Uttarakhand. That judgment had asked the Union government to consider enacting a law for the welfare of domestic workers. However, the Centre had stated that the issue fell within the jurisdiction of states. As no state-level schemes were in place, the unions approached the Supreme Court.
In the end, the bench refused to entertain the petition. It held that the reliefs sought would amount to directing the government to enact legislation, which the court could not do. The petition was disposed of with an observation urging states to examine the concerns raised by domestic workers’ unions.
