Trade unions largely responsible for job losses, stopping industrial growth in the country: CJI Kant

CJI Justice Surya Kant (file image)

The Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant, on Thursday said that trade unionism was largely responsible for stopping the 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. 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," CJI Kant said.

He added that people should be made more aware of their individual rights, people should have been made more skilled, and there were several other reforms that should have been implemented, as reported by Live Law.

A bench comprising Chief Justice and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a PIL filed by Penn Thozhilargal Sangam and other unions seeking welfare measures for domestic workers.

The petitioners, among other things, sought to bring domestic workers under the minimum wages notification.

As soon as the matter was taken, CJI Kant expressed disinclination to entertain the matter, saying "every household will be in litigation."

Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for the petitioners, argued that countries such as Singapore mandate registration of domestic workers, weekly offs and minimum wages, and said collective bargaining was an effective tool.

He submitted that domestic workers were deliberately excluded through executive inaction, resulting in violations of Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution. Relying on the Supreme Court’s Bandhua Mukti Morcha judgment, Ramachandran argued that inadequate wages amounted to begar or bonded labour.

The Chief Justice, however, expressed strong reservations. He warned that the anxiety to bring non-discriminatory reforms through legislation could sometimes worsen exploitation instead of resolving it.

“In our anxiety for reforms, to bring something non-discriminatory through the legislative means, we sometimes unwittingly cause further exploitation. You fix minimum wages, 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 it will cause further hardship,” CJI Kant said.

When Ramachandran objected to what he termed generalisations and stressed that the petitioners were registered trade unions, the Chief Justice said the real exploitation was happening through employment agencies that had taken over domestic labour markets in major cities.

“In all major cities, service provider agencies have taken over. These big entities are there that are exploiting these people. They are the real exploiters,” CJI Kant said, adding that trade union leaders often “leave these people in the lurch” and that excessive regulation could result in households being dragged into litigation.

The Chief Justice cited his own experience to illustrate the point, stating that even when the Supreme Court hired workers through an agency at Rs 40,000 per worker, the workers themselves received only around Rs 19,000.

“I have personally and officially seen this. The moment you break the trust between the domestic help and the employer, millions of families who treat domestic workers as part of the extended family are affected. When you start hiring through agencies, that human connection is lost,” he said, cautioning that such breakdowns could even lead to serious offences.

As soon as the matter was taken up, the bench indicated its disinclination to entertain the plea, observing that enforcing minimum wages through judicial 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, which had asked the Union to explore enacting a law for domestic workers’ welfare. However, the Centre had taken the position that the issue fell within the domain of states. With no state-level schemes in place, the unions approached the Supreme Court.

Ultimately, the bench refused to entertain the petition, holding that the reliefs sought amounted to a mandamus to enact legislation, which the court could not issue. The petition was disposed of with an observation urging states to examine the grievances raised by domestic workers’ unions.