[Answered] “The demand of Scheme-Based Workers (SBWs) for a recognized ‘labour market identity’ is legitimate, highlighting significant challenges in India’s social security framework.” Analyze the validity of this statement, elaborating on the reasons behind SBWs’ demand for a distinct labour market identity. Discuss the implications of their current ambiguous status on their rights, welfare, and access to social security benefits within India’s governance structure.

Introduction

Scheme-Based Workers (SBWs), such as Anganwadi Workers (AWWs), Accredited Social Health Activists (ASHAs), and Mid-Day Meal Workers (MDMWs), form the backbone of India’s flagship welfare schemes, particularly in health, nutrition, and education. Despite their essential role, they remain outside the formal labour market identity, lacking statutory worker rights, minimum wages, and social security. Their long-standing demand for recognition as “workers” is both legitimate and urgent, reflecting deep-rooted structural challenges in India’s labour and social protection regime.

Why SBWs Demand Labour Market Identity

1. Lack of Legal Recognition: Most SBWs are labeled as “volunteers” or “honorary workers” despite performing critical state functions, often full-time and for years. This classification denies them the status of government employees or even formal contractual workers.
2. Exclusion from Labour Rights: SBWs are not covered under labour laws like Minimum Wages Act, EPF Act, or ESI Act, depriving them of wage protection, retirement benefits, or healthcare.
3. Precarity and Exploitation: Many work for nominal honorariums, sometimes below poverty-line wages, with no job security, leave benefits, or legal recourse for grievances.
4. Historical Neglect Despite Essential Work: Their roles have been publicly praised, including by the Prime Minister and WHO, but this appreciation has not translated into policy action or legislative recognition.

Implications of Ambiguous Status

1. Denial of Minimum Wages and Social Security: Without formal identity, SBWs remain ineligible for pensions, gratuity, provident fund, or health insurance.
2. Legal Exclusion and Inconsistent Judicial Relief: The Supreme Court in 2006 denied them “worker” status (Ameerbi case), while later judgments (2022, 2024) extended partial protections, such as gratuity and minimum wages in some states — reflecting inconsistency and limited applicability.
3. Undermines Gender and Social Justice: A majority of SBWs are women from marginalized communities, making their exploitation a question of intersectional discrimination and gender justice.
4. Weakens Accountability in Public Services: Without rights and incentives, SBWs face low morale and high attrition, affecting the quality of services like immunization, nutrition, and maternal-child care.

Broader Governance and Policy Challenges

1. Cost Concerns and Political Evasion: The central government cites fiscal burden and the expanding scope of welfare schemes as reasons for delay in regularization.
2. Policy Paralysis and Privatization Threat: Instead of formalizing their employment, there are moves to privatize schemes like ICDS, undermining both employment security and public service delivery.
3. Tripartite Recommendations Ignored: The 45th Indian Labour Conference (ILC) unanimously recommended full worker status for SBWs, yet no concrete timeline or action has followed.

Conclusion

The struggle of SBWs is not for charity, but for dignity, rights, and justice. Their demand for a recognized labour market identity is a legitimate call to rectify systemic exclusion and ensure social protection. A comprehensive national policy is urgently needed to regularize their status, provide minimum wages, and extend social security. Ignoring this demand not only deepens inequality but also weakens India’s social welfare architecture and the very goals these schemes seek to fulfill.