A comprehensive legislation for 3 crore domestic workers in India demanded by NPDW
On the occasion of International Domestic Workers Day observed on Monday (June 16) the National Platform of Domestic Workers (NPDW) has demanded that the Central government enact a comprehensive legislation for domestic workers.
An estimated number of about 30 million people are engaged in domestic work in the country, who form a critical part of the workforce in the informal sector. Around 80% of these workers are women drawn from the most vulnerable social and economic groups, as per a press release issued on Saturday (June 14).
Varghese Theckanath, member of NPDW national core team and Sister Lissy Joseph, Telangana convenor and others said that India has not adopted a legislation to protect the rights or welfare of domestic workers.
Citing a Supreme Court judgement dated January 29, 2025 which directed the Ministry of Labour and Employment in tandem with three other Ministries to jointly constitute a committee comprising subject experts to consider the desirability of recommending a legal framework for the benefit, protection, and regulation of the rights of domestic workers.
'It will be appreciated if the Committee submits a report within a period of six months, whereupon the Government of India may consider the necessity of introducing a legal framework which may effectively address the cause and concern of domestic workers,' as per the judgement.
NPDW members said that despite the directive, no substantial steps were taken by the Central Government to initiate the legislative process.
Protest in Hyderabad
Domestic workers from four districts convened at the Dharna Chowk in Hyderabad on Monday (June 16) to voice their concerns and press for a mechanism to resolve them. Sister Lissy said that women raised issues like salaries withheld or withdrawn by contractors, unfair wages, atrocities faced, a lack of labour rights and social protection like health insurance. 'If the Telangana government forms a welfare board, the domestic workers can lodge their grievances,' said Sister Lissy. There are over 11 lakh domestic workers in the State.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Consider setting up permanent consumer courts: SC to Centre
Nagpur: The Supreme Court recently directed the central govt to create a permanent adjudicatory framework comprising full-time staff and presiding officers for consumer disputes in India. The Centre was directed to submit an affidavit in three months on the feasibility of setting up a permanent consumer tribunal or court. It emphasised that consumer forums cannot be run on temporary tenure-based appointments. "We would only implore upon it to appreciate the pressing need for a permanent structure," the bench noted. The court, invoking powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, passed sweeping directions in a batch of appeals, while ruling on the legality and structure of consumer forums under the 2020 Rules. The SC directed that the new rules, to be notified within four months, must strictly follow earlier judgments in Rojer Mathew and Madras Bar Association cases and include a fixed five-year tenure. It also ruled that the selection committee must have a judiciary-majority composition. No written exam or viva voce will be needed for appointing or reappointing presidents and judicial members of state and district commissions, while such a process will be required only for non-judicial posts, in consultation with respective state service commissions. The SC upheld that only serving or retired district judges would be eligible for the post of district commission presidents. Once the new rules are in place, all states must complete recruitment under them within four months. Striking a Constitutional note, the bench stated, "Consumerism constitutes the very spirit of the Constitution," linking it with Articles 38, 39, and 47. It called consumer rights inalienable and remarked that consumer litigation is a form of public interest litigation, strengthening participatory democracy — a basic feature of the Constitution. The judgment also addressed three HC rulings from Bombay and Telangana concerning appointment procedures. It upheld the Bombay HC's decision to strike down parts of the 2020 Rules but modified certain aspects relating to reappointments and tenure clarifications. It also ruled that all serving appointees, whether selected before or after the Supreme Court's first ruling in the case in March 2023, may continue until the completion of fresh recruitment under the new rules. Tushar Mandlekar, assisted by Tejas Fadnavis, Astha Sharma and Anju Thomas, represented the original petitioner Mahendra Limaye, a Nagpur-based lawyer, while assistant solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the central govt. Limaye had approached Nagpur bench of Bombay HC challenging an advertisement issued in May this year for recruitment of members or president in district and state consumer commissions in Maharashtra. The HC order stated, "Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 2020 is struck down on the ground that the same results in diluting the involvement of the judiciary in the process of appointment of the president and members of the state commission and the district commission. The said Rule is against the spirit of the decision of the Constitution Bench". The SC bench made it clear that existing appointees allowed to continue under this judgment will serve a four-year tenure, not the new five-year term. "We feel that the time has come to effect a change in mindset revamping the tenure of office in consumer fora," the judges observed.
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Domestic workers urge Union government to enact law for fair wages, social security
In the 25 years that R. Rajeshwari has been a domestic worker, only in the last 10 years did she come to know about her right to a weekly holiday and bonus. 'We think domestic work is not important. Back in the village, people don't value workers who clean the house or the bathroom. But now, we understand the dignity and social security in the work,' she said at an event here on Monday. On the occasion of the International Domestic Workers Day, the Tamil Nadu Domestic Workers Welfare Trust (TNDWWT) urged the Union government to enact a legislation ensuring decent work, fair wages, social security and legal rights to domestic workers. 'Domestic work helped me to educate my daughter only in a matriculation school. Its vital that we receive better wages and that people recognise our work as important,' said Rajeshwari. Better awareness needed Speaking at an event organised on the occasion, Social Welfare and Women Empowerment Minister P. Geetha Jeevan said, 'Even with the government's support, there is a need for better societal awareness. A lot of improvements for women have come about through law. However, many problems persist due to constraints faced within the family set up.' Further, the Tamil Nadu Domestic Workers Welfare Trust submitted a petition to the State government to extend the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act to domestic workers, revise their existing minimum wage to ₹100 per hour and establish regulations and monitoring mechanisms for domestic worker recruitment by agencies to prevent exploitation, among other demands. Member of Parliament Sasikanth Senthil, Member of Legislative Assembly of T. Nagar J. Karunanidhi, District Judge and Deputy Secretary District Legal Services Authority S. Vengadalakshmi, chief functionary TNDWWT Josephine Amala Valarmathi and members of the TNDWWT also spoke at the event.
United News of India
4 hours ago
- United News of India
SC stays Calcutta High Court's suo motu contempt proceedings against police officials
New Delhi, June 16 (UNI) The Supreme Court today stayed the Calcutta High Court's order initiating suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against several West Bengal police officials in connection with the alleged assault on lawyers at the Howrah District Court complex in April 2019. A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manmohan was hearing special leave petitions (SLPs) filed by the implicated police personnel and a connected plea by the State of West Bengal challenging the maintainability of the High Court's suo motu contempt action after a five-year delay. Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh, appearing for the petitioners, questioned the legality of the High Court's decision, arguing that under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, a one-year limitation applies even to suo motu contempt proceedings. He relied on the Supreme Court's precedent in Maheshwar Peri v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (2016), which held that the limitation period applies uniformly, whether contempt is brought to court by a private party or taken up on the court's own motion. ' The apex court, after hearing preliminary submissions, issued notice and ordered that a notice be issued, returnable in six weeks. "In the meanwhile, further proceedings pursuant to the order dated May 2, 2025, shall remain stayed," the judges said. The case pertains to the incident of April 24, 2019, when lawyers at the Howrah District Sadar Court were allegedly assaulted by police personnel who reportedly entered the court premises without authorisation. Following public outcry, the Calcutta High Court took suo motu cognisance of the incident and, in May 2019, appointed former judge Justice K. J. Sengupta as a one-man commission to conduct an inquiry. However, the High Court revived the matter only recently, based on the findings of the Sengupta Commission. In its May 2, 2025 order, the High Court proceeded to initiate contempt action against the concerned police officials. The petitioners argued that the contempt proceedings were barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. However, the Calcutta High Court, in its order, took a different view. It stated, 'The bar of limitation as in Section 20 of the 1971 Act, according to us, is in respect of proceedings initiated by individuals bringing to the notice of the Court an act of contempt. The whole object of such limitation is to ensure diligence on the part of the complainant. But the powers under Article 215 of the Constitution, where the Court itself initiates suo motu proceedings, cannot be curtailed by Section 20, particularly in view of the Court's inherent powers.' Despite this interpretation by the High Court, the Supreme Court has now intervened and stayed the operation of the May 2 order, pending further consideration. The case will be heard next after six weeks. UNI SNG SSP
