SC asks States to evolve plan on domestic workers’ wages


SC Asks States to Evolve Plan on Domestic Workers' Wages

UPSC Prelims + Mains Study Note


1. At a Glance


2. Why in the News


3. Background & Evolution


4. Core Static Facts

Parameter Detail
Petition name Penn Thozhilalargal Sangam v. Union of India
SC Bench CJI Surya Kant + Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Date of hearing 29 January 2026
Petitioner unions 10 domestic workers' unions (led by Penn Thozhilalargal Sangam, Tamil Nadu)
Senior counsel Raju Ramachandran (for petitioners)
Key law sought Inclusion under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 & Code on Wages, 2019
Code on Wages, 2019 Consolidates 4 wage laws; establishes universal floor wage; concurrent list subject
ILO Convention C-189, 2011 — Decent Work for Domestic Workers; India not a signatory
Constitutional Articles invoked Art. 21 (right to life/livelihood), Art. 23 (forced labour), Art. 39(d) (equal pay for equal work — DPSP), Art. 43 (living wage — DPSP)
Ministry Ministry of Labour & Employment
Subject in Constitution Labour — Concurrent List (List III), Entry 22-24
Estimated domestic workers in India ~50 million (largely female, migrant, informal)
States with minimum wage notification for domestic workers Only a handful (e.g., Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh — partially)
ILO C-189 adoption date 16 June 2011

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Economic

Social

Legal / Constitutional

Administrative / Governance

Ethical / Governance

Geopolitical / International Obligations


6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)


7. Prelims Hooks (high-density factual bullets)

  1. The case Penn Thozhilalargal Sangam v. Union of India was heard by a Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant on 29 January 2026. [S1]
  2. The Code on Wages, 2019 consolidates four labour laws: Minimum Wages Act 1948, Payment of Wages Act 1936, Equal Remuneration Act 1976, and Payment of Bonus Act 1965. [S4]
  3. Labour features in the Concurrent List (List III) of the Seventh Schedule — both Parliament and State Legislatures can legislate on it. [S4]
  4. ILO Convention No. 189 on Decent Work for Domestic Workers was adopted on 16 June 2011 — India has not ratified it. [S3]
  5. The petition invoked Article 23 (prohibition of trafficking and forced labour) arguing non-payment of minimum wages = forced labour. [S1]
  6. Article 43 of the Constitution (DPSP) directs the State to secure a living wage for workers — non-justiciable but guides policy. [S1]
  7. The National Policy for Domestic Workers was drafted in 2016 by the Ministry of Labour & Employment but was never formally notified. [S4]
  8. The Code on Wages, 2019 establishes a Central floor wage below which no State can fix wages — applicable once an employment is scheduled/notified. [S4]
  9. Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran appeared for the petitioner unions before the Supreme Court. [S1]
  10. India has ratified ILO Convention 29 (Forced Labour, 1930) and Convention 105 (Abolition of Forced Labour, 1957) — both invocable in the domestic workers context. [S3]
  11. The Code on Social Security, 2020 (one of the four Labour Codes) includes domestic workers under its unorganised workers chapter — but rules remain pending in most States. [S4]
  12. The SC observed domestic workers as one of the "most exploited" sections of workers in India. [S2]
  13. Domestic work in India is performed predominantly by women and is classified as informal/unorganised sector employment. [S3]

8. Mains Relevance

GS Paper IISocial Justice; Government Policies & Interventions; Constitutional Provisions GS Paper ISocial Issues: Women & Vulnerable Groups; Poverty & Development Issues

Specific syllabus headings: - GS-II: "Mechanisms, laws, institutions and bodies constituted for the protection and betterment of vulnerable sections." - GS-II: "Issues relating to the development and management of Social Sector/Services relating to Labour." - GS-I: "Role of women and women's organisation; Social empowerment."

Plausible Mains Questions: 1. "Despite the Code on Wages, 2019 promising universal minimum wage coverage, domestic workers remain outside its ambit in most States. Critically examine the legal, structural, and governance reasons for this exclusion and suggest a way forward." (GS-II, 250 words) 2. "The Supreme Court's reluctance to issue a mandatory direction on minimum wages for domestic workers reflects the tension between judicial activism and the doctrine of separation of powers. Comment." (GS-II, 150 words) 3. "India's non-ratification of ILO Convention 189 contradicts its advocacy for the rights of Indian domestic workers employed abroad. Analyse the implications for India's labour diplomacy." (GS-II / Essay, 250 words)


9. Related Topics to Study Next

Topic Why Connected
Code on Wages, 2019 The central statute whose applicability to domestic workers is the crux of the SC case
Four Labour Codes (2019–20) Broader consolidation exercise; implementation gaps affect domestic workers directly
Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008 Predecessor legislation for unorganised/domestic worker welfare; now subsumed in Code on Social Security 2020
ILO Convention No. 189 (C-189) International benchmark; India's non-ratification is a key exam point
Article 23 & Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 Legal framework for forced labour that petitioners invoked
National Policy for Domestic Workers (2016 draft) Policy gap that contextualises why States need judicial nudging
MGNREGA & Minimum Wage Linkage Debate on floor wage and whether guaranteed employment wages crowd out domestic work wages
Care Economy & Gender Feminist economics angle — why domestic work is undervalued; links to GS-I women's issues

10. Common Errors / Trap Areas

  1. Code on Wages ≠ automatic inclusion of domestic workers: Many aspirants assume the Code's "universal" floor wage automatically covers domestic workers. It does not — domestic work must first be notified/scheduled by the State government under the Code. This is the precise gap the SC case highlights.

  2. Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is NOT repealed yet: The Code on Wages, 2019 will subsume it when notified with State rules — but as of 2026, the 1948 Act is still operationally relevant in most States.

  3. Confusing ILO C-189 with C-190: C-189 (2011) is on Decent Work for Domestic Workers; C-190 (2019) is on Violence and Harassment at work — two separate conventions, both unratified by India.

  4. Labour in Concurrent vs. State List: Labour is in the Concurrent List, not purely a State subject — but enforcement and scheduling of employments under wage laws is primarily a State function. Do not say labour is exclusively a State subject.

  5. Penn Thozhilalargal Sangam is a Tamil workers' union, not a central body — aspirants may incorrectly attribute it to a national trade union federation (INTUC, AITUC, etc.).


11. Sources