RIGHT TO EMPLOYMENT IN INDIA

PROJECT BY:

NAME: Mukul Rathore

COURSE: B.A.LL. B (Hons.)

ROLL NO: 1742

SEMESTER: 5th

SUBMITTED TO:

Ms. Pallavi Shankar

Teacher Associate
A FINAL DRAFT SUBMITTED FOR T

HE PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE COURSE LAOUR LAW-II FOR THE DEGREE OF

B.A.LL. B

September 2019

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NYAYA NAGAR,

MITHAPUR, PATNA – 800001
DECLARATION
I, hereby declare that the project entitled “Right to Employment in India” submitted in partial
fulfilment of the requirements for award of the degree of B.A.LL.B. at CHANAKYA
NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, is an authentic work and has not been submitted to any other
University/Institute for award of any degree/diploma. 

MUKUL RATHORE
(1742)
B.A.LL.B.
THIRD YEAR.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Firstly, I would like to express our immense gratitude towards our institution Chanakya National
Law University, which created a great platform to attain profound technical skills in the field
of B.A.LL.B. in the subject Law of Labour law, thereby fulfilling our most cherished goal. 

I sincerely express thanks to my guide and teacher Ms. Pallavi Shankar who helped me complete
this project to the best of my capabilities and patiently attended to my queries and doubts.

I express deep gratitude to my family and friends who continue to push me in the daunting times
of project submission and ultimately, whether directly or indirectly, helping me complete this
project successfully. 

MUKUL RATHORE
(1742)
B.A.LL.B.
THIRD YEAR.
Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................5
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES:........................................................................................................6
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:................................................................................................6
HYPOTHESIS:............................................................................................................................6
LIMITATION:.............................................................................................................................6
SOURCES OF DATA:.................................................................................................................6
RIGHT TO EMPLOYMENT AND INDIAN CONSTITUTION...................................................7
VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO EMPLOYMENT............................................................................11
ROLE OF JUDICIARY.................................................................................................................13
CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................18
BIBLIOGRAPHY..........................................................................................................................20
INTRODUCTION
Right to employment is the idea that individuals have a human right to work or take part in
productive employment and may not be kept from doing as such.1In other words, work to
maintain an adequate standard of living. Leave aside the labour power, economic assets are
unevenly distributed therefore making each one of us interdependent. Consequently, one must
work otherwise the necessities of life shall remain unfulfilled. The world has been moving
forward based on the policy of give and take. And as we have come a long way from the barter
system, the present-day medium which enables such exchange of resources, for which one must
‘work’, is money. 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 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, recognize the right to work in an employment of one’s choice and the State’s
responsibility to safeguard this right.2
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’. To what started as a struggle to stop the
demolition of pavement dwellings and slum hutments ended with the Supreme Court recognizing
‘right to work’ as a fundamental right. Henceforth, providing every person within the Indian
territory with the right to be employed in an employment of their choice, subject to lawful
restrictions, to protect them from being deprived of their life. 3 Furthermore, the Right prevents

1
Right to Work in Indian Constitution, 19-9-2019 , https://legodesk.com/legopedia/right-to-work-in-india/.
2
Tissy Annie Thomas, Right to work under the Indian Constitution, 16-06-2018 , https://blog.ipleaders.in/right-to-
work/.
3
Ibid.
the removal of any person from employment or deprivation of a person from being employed
except as per procedure established by law.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES:

The aim of the researcher is to critically analyse the Right to employment in India.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

The researcher will be relying on Doctrinal method of research to complete the project.

HYPOTHESIS:

Researcher presumes that right to work must be a fundamental right providing every person
within the Indian territory with the right to be employed in an employment of their choice,
subject to lawful restrictions, to protect them from being deprived of their life.

LIMITATION:

Owing to the large number of topics that could be included in the project, the scope of this
research project is exceedingly vast. However, in the interest of brevity, this paper has been
limited to the specified topics. Also, the researcher will have time and money limitations while
making of this project.

SOURCES OF DATA:
The researcher will be relying on both primary and secondary sources to complete the project.

1. Primary Sources: Acts

2. Secondary Sources: Books, newspapers, journals, cases and websites

RIGHT TO EMPLOYMENT AND INDIAN CONSTITUTION

Right to employment has been crystallized as basic human right in the Universal Declaration
of Human Right. Socialist systems recognize the right to work as an obligation; the state my
extract the work that socially and economically useful. For example, the Chinese
Constitution of 1982 declares that the right to work is “a glorious duty of every able-bodied
citizen.” However, it is experienced to suppose that the right to work can be guaranteed only
in socialistic systems.4 The word 'socialist' was added in the preamble of the Constitution by
the Forty-second Amendment in 1976 incorporating the philosophy of ‘socialism’ aims at
elimination of inequality in income and status and standard of life. 5 It does not however
envisage doctrinaire socialism in the sense of insistence on state ownership as matter of
policy. The Supreme Court has in several decisions referred to the concept of socialism and
has used this concept along with the Directive Principles of the State Policy to assess and
evaluate economic legislation. The Court has derived concept of social justice and of an
economically egalitarian society from the concept of socialism. According to the Supreme
Court, “the principle aim of socialism is to eliminate inequality of income and status
standards of life, and to provide a decent standard of life to the working people’ Another idea
propounded by the Court is that socialism means distributive justice so as to bring about the
distribution of material resources of the community so as sub serve the common good.6
However, the Indian Constitution does not explicitly recognize 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’.7

4
Kerala Hotel and Restuarant Association Vs State of Kerala, AIR 1990 SC 913.
5
MP. Jain, Indian Constitution Law, (6th ed.. 2010).
6
S.S Singh & S. Mishra, State and Market: A Constitutional Analysis. Delhi haw Review. 46 (1996). "
7
Tissy Annie Thomas, Right to work under the Indian Constitution, 16-06-2018 , https://blog.ipleaders.in/right-to-
work/.
 Constitutional Provisions relating to Right of workers

Article 41 of the Constitution provides 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.” Article 38 states that the state shall
strive to promote the welfare of the people and article 43 states it shall endeavour to secure a
living wage and a decent standard of life to all workers. One of the contexts in which the
problem of enforceability of such a right was posed before the Supreme Court was of large-
scale abolition of posts of village officers in the State of Tamil Nadu in India. In negating the
contention that such an abolition of posts would fall foul of the DPSP, the court said:- It is no
doubt true that Article 38 and Article 43 of the Constitution insist that the State should
endeavour to find sufficient work for the people so that they may put their capacity to work
into economic use and earn a fairly good living. But these articles do not mean that
everybody should be provided with a job in the civil service of the State and if a person is
provided with one, he should not be asked to leave it even for a just cause.

If it were not so, there would be justification for a small percentage of the population being in
Government service and in receipt of regular income and a large majority of them remaining
outside with no guaranteed means of living. It would certainly be an ideal if work could be
found for all the able-bodied men and women and everybody is guaranteed the right to
participate in the production of national wealth and to enjoy the fruits thereof. But we are
today far away from that goal. The question whether a person who ceases to be a government
servant according to law should be rehabilitated by being given an alternative employment is,
as the law stands today, a matter of policy on which the court has no voice was held in K.
Rajendran Vs State of Tamilnadu8. But the court has since then felt freer to interfere even in
areas which would have been in the domain of the policy of the executive.

Where the issue was of regularizing the services of many casual (non-permanent) workers in the
posts and telegraphs department of the government, the court has not hesitated to invoke the
DPSP to direct such regularization. The explanation was Even though the above directive
8
K. Rajendran Vs State of Tamilnadu, AIR (1982 ) SC 1107.
principle may not be enforceable as such by virtue of Article 37 of the Constitution of India, it
may be relied upon by the petitioners to show that in the instant case they have been subjected to
hostile discrimination. It is urged that the State cannot deny at least the minimum pay in the pay
scales of regularly employed workmen even though the Government may not be compelled to
extend all the benefits enjoyed by regularly recruited employees. We are of the view that such
denial amounts to exploitation of labour. The Government cannot take advantage of its dominant
position and compel any worker to work even as a casual labourer on starvation wages. It may be
that the casual labourer has agreed to work on such low wages. That he has done because he has
no other choice. It is poverty that has driven him to that state. The Government should be a
model employer. We are of the view that on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the
classification of employees into regularly recruited employees and casual employees for the
purpose of paying less than the minimum pay payable to employees in the corresponding regular
cadres particularly in the lowest rungs of the department where the pay scales are the lowest is
not tenable. It is true that all these rights cannot be extended simultaneously. But they do indicate
the socialist goal. The degree of achievement in this direction depends upon the economic
resources, willingness of the people to produce and more than all the existence of industrial
peace throughout the country. Of those rights the question of security of work is of utmost
importance.

In Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs Union of India 9 PIL by an NGO highlighted the deplorable
condition of bonded laborers in a quarry in Haryana, not very far from the Supreme Court. A host
of protective and welfare-oriented labour legislation, including the Bonded Labour (Abolition)
Act and the Minimum Wages Act. we’re being observed in the breach. In giving extensive
directions to the state government to enable it to discharge its constitutional obligation towards
the bonded laborers, the court said: The right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21
derives its life breath from the Directive Principles of State Policy and particularly clauses (e)
and (f) of Article 39 and Article 41 and 42 and at the least, therefore, it must include protection
of the health and strength of workers, men and women, and of the tender age of children against
abuse, opportunities and facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions
of freedom and dignity, educational facilities, just and humane conditions of work and maternity
relief. These are the minimum requirements which must exist in order to enable a person to live
9
Mukti Morcha Vs Union of India, AIR (19841 SC 802.
with human dignity and no State has the right to take any action which will deprive a person of
the enjoyment of these essentials. Since the Directive Principles of State Policy contained in
clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39, Articles 41 and 42 are not enforceable in a court of law, it may
not be possible to compel the State through the judicial process to make provision by statutory
enactment or executive fiat for ensuring these basic essentials which go to make up a life of
human dignity. But where legislation is already enacted by the State providing these basic
requirements to the workmen and thus investing their right to live with basic human dignity, with
concrete reality and content, the State can certainly be obligated to ensure observance of such
legislation, for inaction on the part of the State in securing implementation of such legislation
would amount to denial of the right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21, more so
in the context of Article 256 which provides that the executive power of every State shall be so
exercised as to ensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament and any existing laws
which apply in that State. Thus, the court converted what seemed a non-justiciable issue into a
justiciable one by invoking the wide sweep of the enforceable article 21. More recently, the court
performed a similar exercise when, in the context of articles 21 and 42, it evolved legally binding
guidelines to deal with the problems of sexual harassment of women at the workplace.

VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO EMPLOYMENT

The first and foremost thing to be kept in mind is, leave alone the exceptions, since it is the State
which enforces the existence of fundamental rights, the same can only be claimed against the
State and not against any private institution. In other words, the right to work can only be
claimed against the State and not against any private institution.10

Decoding the Supreme Court ruling in Olga Tellis case right to work is violated-

1. When a person is terminated from his job against the terms of his employment. For
instance, as in the Charan Singh case (above), if a permanent employee is terminated
from his job without a reasonable cause it amounts to the violation of the ‘right to
work’.
2. When a person is terminated from his job in violation of the already laid down Central
or State laws.
3. When a person is excluded from being employed based on unfair and unreasonable
classification.
4. When a person is deprived of his livelihood in violation of the just and fair procedure
established by law, as was the case in Olga Tellis & Ors. v Bombay Municipal
Corporation & Ors.

It is important to note that voluntary unemployment or unemployment due to lack of jobs or lack
of skills shall not amount to a violation of the Right to Work.

In event of violation of the ‘right to work,’ a writ petition can be filed-

 In the High Court of the respective State under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, or
 In the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

As opposed to the other fundamental rights which are suspended for the period during which the
Proclamation of Emergency is in force, Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution continue to operate.
Thus, ‘right to work’ which is included in ‘right to life’ under Article 21 can be claimed even

10
Tissy Annie Thomas, Right to work under the Indian Constitution, 16-06-2018 , https://blog.ipleaders.in/right-to-
work/.
during the period of Emergency and the aggrieved can seek remedy from the Court in event of its
violation.11

However, a person pursuing an occupation/ trade/ business prohibited by law cannot claim the
‘right to work’ when the State takes measures to curb it. For instance, living on the gains of
prostitution, gambling and the likewise is not protected under the ‘right to work’.

ROLE OF JUDICIARY

The right to employment is the essential foundation for economic democracy therefore
employment can no longer be considered as privilege. The right to employment for a living wage
in the common occupation of the community is of the very essence of the personal freedom and
11
Right to Work in Indian Constitution, 14-9-2018 , https://legodesk.com/legopedia/right-to-work-in-india/
opportunity which should be recognized as 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 Vs Union of India12 gave a new dimension to
Article 21 which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. 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.

In Olga Tellis Vs Bombay Municipal Corporation13 a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court
ruled that the word ‘life’ in Article 21 includes the ‘right to livelihood'.

Arguments Raised

Arguments of the petitioners-

That such demolition amounted to a violation of the right to livelihood, which could be read
under Article 21 along with the right to life.

2. That the action of the respondents would violate the right of the petitioners under Article 19
(e)(g).

3. That S. 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 was arbitrary as it enabled the
Municipal Commissioner to cause the removal of encroachments without giving a notice to the
parties who would be affected.

4. That the petitioners’ act of encroaching the pavement rose out of an economic compulsion and
thus calling them trespassers would be constitutionally not permissible.14

Arguments of the respondent-

That as the petitioners had accepted before the High Court that they did not claim any
fundamental right to put up huts on public passage routes and had given an undertaking to the
High Court that they would not obstruct the demolition of the huts after October 15, 1981, they
12
Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
13
Olga Tellis Vs Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 108.
14
ibid
should be estopped from claiming that the demolition of slums and pavement dwellings violated
their right to livelihood.15

2. That no person has the right to put a public property to private use. That the right conferred
under Article 19(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India cannot be read as a
right to encroach/trespass public property.

3. That S. 312, S. 313 and s. 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act do not violate the
Constitution but are legislated in public interest.

4. That the slum hutments near the Western Express Highway, Vile Parle were constructed on an
accessory road, which was part of the Highway itself, and were neither regularised by the
Corporation nor registration numbers were assigned to them.

5. That no deprivation of life, directly or indirectly is involved in the eviction of the slum and
pavement dweller from public places. That the Municipal Corporation is under an obligation
under S. 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act to remove obstructions on public streets
and other public places.

The Judgement- Right to Work

Having paid heed to the arguments of all the parties the Court gave its judgement.At the very
outset, the Court dismissed the argument of the respondent which stated that by the operation of
the doctrine of estoppel, the petitioner could not claim the fundamental right- the right to
livelihood. The Court held that there could be no estoppel against the Constitution. That, it was
to fulfil the vision in the Preamble that Fundamental Rights were conferred, and no person could
barter away the rights thus conferred by way of Fundamental Rights.

With respect to the case at hand, the Court observed that persons in the position of the petitioners
lived in slums and on pavements because they had small jobs in the city. That they chose to live
on pavements or in slums in the vicinity of their place of work to avoid the commuting costs
which cost them way too much when compared to their meagre earnings. Losing the sheds hence
meant losing a job.

15
ibid
The Court also observed that though the petitioners were using public property for private use,
they had no intention of committing an offence, intimidate, insult or annoy any person, which is
the gist of the offence of ‘Criminal Trespass’ as defined under S.441 of the Indian Penal Code.
That they lived there due to economic compulsion.16

Right to work is a Fundamental Right.

Coming on to the question of the ‘right to livelihood’ as claimed by the petitioners the Court had
observed that to make living life meaningful there had to be a means of living, i.e. the means of
livelihood. That, if the right to livelihood was not treated as a part of the right to life, the easiest
way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of earning a
living.The Court held- that, which makes life possible to live, must be deemed to be an integral
component of the right to life. For if a person is deprived of his right to livelihood he shall be
consequently deprived of his right to life, for life- as enshrined under Article 21, meant more
than mere animal existence.17

DPSP and Fundamental Right.

‘Right to work’ was recognised considering the supplementary and complementary characteristic
of the Fundamental rights and DPSP with respect to each other. Right to life must include the
right to work as has already been explained above as per the judicial interpretation. The DPSP,
on the other hand, provides for the state’s responsibility to ensure that all citizens have the right
to an adequate means of livelihood. Keeping in mind the non-enforceable nature of the DPSPs
the Court had held that DPSPs reflect the vision of the State and thus possible steps should be
taken in furtherance of it.

Hence, ‘Right to work’ is an outcome of a harmonious interpretation of both the fundamental

rights and directive principles of state policy.

Right to work v. Right to demand employment from the government.

16
Tissy Annie Thomas, Right to work under the Indian Constitution, 16-06-2018 , https://blog.ipleaders.in/right-to-
work/.
17
Tissy Annie Thomas, Right to work under the Indian Constitution, 16-06-2018 , https://blog.ipleaders.in/right-to-
work/.
It should, however, be understood that the State cannot be compelled to provide adequate means
of livelihood or work to the citizens by acting affirmatively. In other words, no person can sue
the State for not providing him with a job. But if any person is deprived of his right to livelihood
except according to just and fair procedure established by law, he can challenge the deprivation
as offending the right to life conferred by Article 21.18

The landmark judgement of the Supreme Court in the Olga Tellis case thus recognised the right
as being inherent in Article 21. Though ‘right to work’ is not a fundamental right explicitly
mentioned in Part III of the Constitution of India, it is now read along with the ‘right to life’
under Article 21. The court observed: "If the right to livelihood is not treated as 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 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.'’ Similar view was
reheated by the apex court in many other subsequent decisions by which the right to employment
has been give the same strength as of fundamental rights of the Constitution.

In D.K. Yadav Vs J.M.A. Industries19 it was observed that Article 21 club’s life with liberty,
dignity of persons with means of livelihood without which the glorious content of dignity of
person would reduce to animal existence. These landmark decisions ofthe Indian judiciary make
many directives enforceable that would not otherwise be covered. Article 37 of the Constitution
provides that the directive principles ofthe state policy, though not enforceable by any court, are
nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country. The principle contained in Articles 39
(1) and 41 has been interpreted by the court with help of fundamental right under different
provisions of the Constitution and regarded as equally fundamental in the understanding and
interpretation of the meaning and content of fundamental right. However, the Supreme Court in
Delhi Development Horticulture Employees’ Union Vs Delhi Administration 20 held that although
broadly interpreted and as necessary logical corollary, the right to life would include the right to
livelihood and therefore, right to work but this country has so far not found feasible to
18
Tissy Annie Thomas, Right to work under the Indian Constitution, 16-06-2018 , https://blog.ipleaders.in/right-to-
work/.
19
D.K. Yadav Vs J.M.A. Industries, (1993) 3 SCC 259..
20
in Delhi Development Horticulture Employees’ Union Vs Delhi Administration,AIR 1992 SC 789.
incorporate the right to livelihood as fundamental right in Constitution. This is because the
country has so far not attained the capacity to guarantee it, and not because it considers it any the
less fundamental to life. Therefore, it has been placed in the directive principles, Article 41 of
which enjoins upon the State to make effective provision for securing the same, “within the
limits of its economic capacity and development”. Thus, it is seen that the right to employment
has got the jurisprudential recognition in India on the basis of liberal and innovative
interpretation of the various provisions of the Constitution an emerged to be a right though it
remains subject to economic capacity and development ofthe state. In recent past a large number
of employment programmes have been initiated in India to overcome the problem of
employment by providing gainful employment to the urban unemployed and underemployed
poor, by encouraging the setting up of self-employed ventures by the urban poor and also by
providing wage employment and utilizing their labour for construction of socially and
economically useful public assets

CONCLUSION
Right to work is the idea that individuals have a human right to work or take part in productive
employment and may not be kept from doing as such. The right to work is revered in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law
through its incorporation in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
where the right to work focuses on financial, social and cultural development. The ‘right to
work’ subsequently is the most basic component of life to live. To have the basic needs of food,
water, clothing and shelter and furthermore something more than simply the basic needs of life
one must work to earn. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the two of which were acceded by India, in
Article 23 and Article 6 separately, perceive the right to work in employment of one’s own
choice and the State’s obligation to protect this right. However, the Indian Constitution does not
expressly recognize the ‘right to work’ as a fundamental right. It is set in Part IV (Directive
Principles of State Policy) of the Constitution under Article 41, which henceforth makes it
unenforceable in the court. In spite of the lack of an express wording of the ‘right to work’ in
Part III (Fundamental Rights) of the Constitution, it was turned into a ‘fundamental right’
through a judicial interpretation. All because of the wider interpretation of Article 21 made by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court through its judgment in Olga Tellis and Ors. v Bombay Municipal
Corporation and Ors.- ‘right to work’ was perceived as a fundamental right inalienable in the
‘right to life’.

Talking about the question of the ‘right to livelihood’ as claimed by the petitioners, the Court
had observed that to make living significant there must be a means of living, i.e. the means of
livelihood. That, if the right to livelihood was not regarded as a part of the right to life, the most
convenient method for denying a man of his right to life is denying him of his means of earning a
living. The Court held-that, which makes life possible to live, must be regarded to be an
indispensable part of the right to life. For if a man is denied of his right to livelihood he will be
thusly denied of his right to life, forever as revered under Article 21, implied more than mere
animal existence. The landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in the Olga Tellis case
recognized the right as being inborn in Article 21. However, ‘right to work’ is certainly not a
fundamental right expressly specified in Part III of the Constitution of India, it is currently
perused alongside the ‘right to life’ under Article 21.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS:

 MP. Jain, Indian Constitution Law,

 V.N Shukla, constitution of India.
 S.S Singh & S. Mishra, State and Market: A Constitutional Analysis

WEBSITES:
 https://legodesk.com/legopedia/right-to-work-in-india/
 https://blog.ipleaders.in/right-to-work/
 https://sg.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/236278/9/09_chapter%201.pdf