Right to work –respo side

India is one of the most populated countries in the world, facing the
massive problem of unemployment. The problem of unemployment is a
serious one and it leads to a number of consequences including personal
disorganization, family disorganization, social disorganization and
irreparable financial losses.
The right to minimum means to live a life with human dignity is an
unwritten implication of the guarantee of human dignity which includes
basic living conditions implying some kind of employment.An
unemployment person loses self-respect and faces a discouraging and a
disappointing outlook
Equal employment opportunity is a prerequisite for equal accessibility to
achieved status. Realization of human personality is only possible when
there is a scope of substantial access to employment. Thus, opportunity
for employment becomes imperative in all such cultures which claim to
be democracies. This minimum has to be provided and protected by the
state through appropriate governmental policies and qualitative
execution of those policies. However, in a welfare state like ours
appropriate legislations and the judiciary can do a lot to secure the „right
to employment‟, one of the basic human rights. India is a signatory to all
the employment-related human rights documents, which it is obliged to
satisfy.
-:There is no express provision in the Constitution of India which makes
the right to work an enforceable right however, the evolution of human
rights has sought to safeguard three aspects of human existence: human
integrity, freedom and equality are the integral part of the Constitution.
(as per Articles 14, 16, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India) In
such a situation the Supreme Court of India has taken the recourse to
Article 39(a) to interpret Article 21 to include therein the “right to
livelihood.” In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation10 the
Supreme Court observed: “If there is an obligation upon the State to
secure the citizens an adequate means of livelihood and the right to
work, it would be sheer pedantry to exclude the right to livelihood from
the content of the right to life.”
Article 41 requires that “the State shall within the limits of its economic
capacity and development, make effective provision, for securing the
right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of
unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of
undeserved want”. The principle enshrined in Article 41 read with
Article 45 provides that it is not only necessary but also desirable for the
performance of the State‟s ultimate duty and responsibility, to provide
education to all citizens. It has been held that Article 29 and 30 relating
to Culture and Educational Rights should be read in the backdrop of
Article 41 and 45.( In re Kerla Education Bill, AIR 1958 SC 956. 60)
-:Right to work, to education, etc. in Article 41, is expressly subjected to
economic capacity and development of the State. Therefore, person left
unemployed under any scheme, cannot claim regularization of their
employment, when that scheme comes to an end or the money for it, is
exhausted.( Delhi Development Horticultural Employees’ Union v.
Delhi Administration, AIR 1992 SC 789) Right to work has been
deliberately kept, by the Founding Fathers, in Directive Principles
Chapter and hence made unenforceable because, they, in their wisdom,
realized that while it was their wish that everyone should be given
employment, but the ground realities.
The right to employment is the essential foundation for economic
democracy therefore employment can no longer be considered as a
privilege. The right to employment for a living wages in the common
occupation of the community is of the very essence of the personal
freedom and opportunity which should be recognized as a fundamental
human right having legal enforceability. Indian judiciary has played a
very vital role in this regard and included right to employment within the
„right to life‟ as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The
decision of the Supreme Court of India in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India AIR 1978 SC 597, gave a new dimension to Article 21 which
guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.( Article 21 provides:
“No person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law.”) The judges of the Indian
Supreme Court have noted that right to life is not confined to mere
physical existence but includes the right to live with human dignity.(foot
note-:35 Francis Corali v. Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746,
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802, State of
H.P. v. Umed Ram, AIR 1986 SC 847, Delhi Development Horticulture
Employees’ Union v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1992 SC 789.) In Olga
Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation AIR 1986 SC 180. a five
judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the word „life‟ in Article
21 includes the „right to livelihood‟. The court observed: “If the right to
livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the
easiest ways of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive
him of his means of livelihood. In view of the fact that Articles 39(a)
and 41 require the State to secure to the citizen an adequate means of
livelihood and the right to work, it should be sheer pedantry to exclude
the right to livelihood from the content of the right to life.”
The ‘right to work’ hence is the most essential element of life to be able to live. To enable
the fulfilment of the basic need for food, water, clothing and shelter and also something
more than just the basic requirements of life one must work to earn.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights, both of which were acceded by India, in Article 23 and Article 6
respectively, recognise the right to work in an employment of one’s choice and the State’s
responsibility to safeguard this right.

However, the Indian Constitution does not explicitly recognise the ‘right to work’ as a
fundamental right. It is placed in Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy) of the
Constitution under Article 41, which hence makes it unenforceable in the court of law.
Despite the absence of an express wording of the ‘right to work’ in Part III (Fundamental
Rights) of the Constitution, it became a ‘fundamental right’ through a judicial interpretation.

All thanks to the wider interpretation of Article 21 made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
through its judgement in Olga Tellis & Ors. v Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors.- ‘right to
work’ was recognised as a fundamental right inherent in the ‘right to life’.