Content uploaded by Richa Saxena
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Richa Saxena on May 15, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
135
Page Nos. 135-139
VALUE OF INVALUABLE WORK
Dr. Richa Saxena*
“The invaluable work of the homemakers has never been given due credit. It is most underrated
work socially and unpaid work economically. Women are eithereducated or uneducated but are making
home, takingcare ofchildren and elderly, cooking, cleaning,working in the field, managing shops,
participating in family business. Still they are ‘non-earning’. Hence, they are ‘non-working’. Recently,
the Apex Court held that services of the home maker has to be compensated on the pecuniary basis. Since
then a debate open tovalue the services of the homemaker by salary or take them as a worker. In this
paper author has analyzed the various principles applied by the Court to calculate the notional income of
the house maker to determine the compensation, and also discussed the way ahead to value their
invaluable work”.
Keywords: Housewife, House maker, unpaid work, CEDAW, Notional Income, Future Prospect
Introduction
“Man and Woman together begins family
Man earns and buy house
Women works and make home
Man’s work has value economically
Woman work is ‘invaluable.”
Economically, the women’s work of home
making has no value. It is most undervalued,
underpaid, unprotected and poorly regulated work
everywhere. Around the world, women do the vast
majority of unpaid work, including childcare,
cooking, cleaning and farming. This unpaid work
is essential for the household and economics to
function but is less valued than any paid work.
From cooking and cleaning, to fetching water and
firewood or taking care of children and the elderly,
women carry out at least two and a half times
more unpaid and care work than men. Yet it is
rarely recognized as work.i The household work of
women is not acknowledged as work, neither
theyare paid for that. If this work is valued, it
would contribute more to the Economy. Here in
India, men spend eight percent of their working
hours in paid work, women spend about eighty
four percent of working hours in unpaid workii.
Recently, Supreme Court in Kriti v Oriental
Insurance Company Ltdiii, valued the unpaid work
of the homemakers.
Unpaid Work of Women
Women’s literacy rate is increasing, they
are getting higher and professional education,
gender parity in terms of fertility rates is
increasing, various policies and law for their
protection in the domestic spheres and at work
places is being made, and instead Female Labour
Force Participation is continuously falling in
India.iv It does not mean that they are doing
nothing. They cook for family, care for children
and elderly, do multiple domestic chores, and in
rural areas, tend to animals and gardens and do
farming. All this invisible work is unpaid and
unrecognizedv. The National Sample Survey report
on Time Use in India shows women participation
in unpaid domestic services for household
members, cooking cleaning, household
management is as high as 81.2 % each day
*Assistant Professor - Faculty of Law University of Lucknow
136
compare with 26.1 %for men. Women Spend 299
minutes (about 5hours) thrice as much as men 97
minutes (one hour 37 minutes)vi. About one sixty
million women in India are home makers. All the
work they do in daily routine is unpaid and non-
valuable. They are kept in the category of ‘non
worker’ doing ‘non-productive activity’ in the
2011 census. Their work adds nothing to the
economy of the country, because what they do is
either nurture and care of her own family or if
doing anything other than that may be family
profession, such be on the shop, or farming,
making some household affairs, all in the name of
family business. They are ‘non-earning’ but are
not ‘non-working’. The Convention on
Elimination of all Kinds of Discrimination against
Women (CEDAW) mentioned in its
recommendation that to know the economic role
of the women, it is required to measure and
quantify the unremunerated domestic work of
women.vii The valuation of the unpaid work of
women is an issue towards the policy makers.
Value of Invaluable work
Family includes worth of both men and
women. Man earns to feed the family and woman
works to maintain the family. Man’s work has
financial value and has economic importance
while women work is ‘invaluable’ rather unpaid,
undervalued or non-valuable. Justice Ramanna
recently in Kriti Singh Case mentioned that to
ensure the constitutional vision of social equality
and for ensuring the dignity of life to the
individuals it is very much required to fix the
notional income for the house maker.viii An
attempt has been made by the Apex court in the
above mentioned case, by computing the value of
the work of homemaker to award the
compensation in the accidental claim under Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988.
It is held that calculation of notional
income and grant of future prospects is very much
required for the calculation of the compensation of
the homemaker who died in the accident. It is
expressly mentioned that the grant of
compensation on the pecuniary basis for the
homemakers is a settled preposition of Law. In
accordance of the fact and circumstances of a case,
Court may apply any just method to calculate the
notional income, while granting future prospect is
one of the component of the just compensationix.
Court has applied various methods for
calculating compensation for the homemakers
prior to this judgment. One of the statutory
methods provided in the Second Schedule of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In accordance to that
notional income of the house maker is one third of
the income of earning surviving spouse.x The
Second Schedule is now omitted by the Motor
Vehicles Act (Amendment) Act 2019.xi Though
this method was adopted in Arun Kumar Agrawal
v National Insurance Company Limited case.xii
The Apex Court held that the method applied by
the Tribunal for calculating compensation for the
services of homemaker is not rational and is
without appreciating the value of her services of
home making. A British case cited in the Arun’s
case by the Supreme Court in which pecuniary
value of a wife’s service were assessed and
granted while considering the facts, such as loss
to the family of the wife’s housekeeping services,
loss suffered by the children of the personal
attention, of their mother, apart from housekeeping
services rendered by her, and loss of the wife’s
personal care and attention, which the husband has
suffered, in addition to the loss of her
housekeeping.xiii
There are some methods such as
Opportunity lost method, Partnership Method and
Replacement which were considered by the Court
for calculation of the Notional Income of the
Homemakers.xiv In opportunity lost method,
notional income of the house maker is calculated
on the ground that what she would have earn if
she had not remained at home. It simply means
that what she has lost as her earning if her work
would be paid work. In Partnership Method, her
notional income is calculated as half of the salary
of her husband on the ground that marriage is
equal economic partnership. In Replacement
method, Notional Income of the Homemaker is
calculated on the basis of the cost of her house
making work by the paid workers.xiv In this case,
Court in absence of any documentary evidence
that wife was working as partner with the husband
accepted contention of the father in law that she
assisting her husband in work. Partnership rule
137
was applied by the court and determine the
notional income of the house wife three thousand
five hundred on the basis that half of the salary of
the husband that was two thousand seven hundred
fifty and notionally added seven hundred fifty to
that, it is three thousand five hundred monthly. A
just compensation calculated by multiplied it
twelve to get annual income and again seventeenth
multiplier applied.
Though none of these method is accurate
to assess the notional income of the homemakers
in all circumstances. Opportunity lost method
failed in the case where homemaker refused to
work as paid workers voluntarily. Partnership
method failed in case where her husband is not
earning. Replacement method failed to assess just
notional income of homemakers because paid
worker’s work does not include the contribution of
the selfless services of homemaker.
In fact, contribution made by the
housewife is invaluable and cannot be computed
in terms of money. The gratuitous service rendered
by wife with true love and affection to the children
and her husband and managing the household
affairs cannot be equated with the services of the
others. It is not possible to quantify any amount in
lieu of the services rendered by the wife/mother to
the family i.e., husband and children. However for
the purpose of award of compensation to the
dependents, some pecuniary estimate has to be
made of the services of housewife/mother. In that
context, the term ‘service’ is required to be given a
broad meaning and must be construed by taking
into account the loss of personal care and attention
given by the deceased to her children as a mother
and to her husband as a wife. They are entitled to
adequate compensation in lieu of gratuitous
services rendered by the deceased.xvi
In LataWadhawa v State of Biharxvii Court
held that multiplier method is logically sound and
legally established method for ensuring just
compensation. In case, house wife, who did not
have earning income, the compensation has to be
determined on the basis of services she rendered in
the house and in accordance to the age group
sufficient multiplier has to be applied. House
wives for the purpose of calculating compensation
has two categories, one whose income is known as
their husband are employed and others whose
husband income is not known. For those whose
husband are employed in the respondent’s
company, husband’s income is considered and
determination of loss of wife determined and on
applying the multiplier compensation was
calculated and some conventional figure is also
added to the compensation. On applying this
principle the income of the house wife of age 34 to
59 was accessed as thirty six thousand per annum
on the basis of multifarious work she did in the
household.
In Rajendra Singh v National Insurance
Company Limitedxviii it was held that a housewife
who contributes to the welfare of the family and
upbringing for the children must be given
prospects in as much as with the passage of time
the utility of her services increases in the family.
The notional income of the house wife was
accessed five thousand per month, after deduction
of personal expenses, sufficient multiplier
(seventeenth multiplier) applied and compensation
was awarded of Rs 7,65000. The future prospect
was calculated with rate of 40% interest as with
the time, her maturity and skill as house wife will
enhance for taking care of household and children.
In Jaswant v Umed Singhxix, it is held that
for accessing the value of the services rendered by
the house wife, surrounding circumstances, status
of the parties, the area where the claimants are
residing etc. are some of the factors which are
required to be taken into consideration.
In Jitendra Kanemshankar Trivedi and
others v Kasam Daud Khabarxx Court did not
assume that deceased was self-employed because
she knows tailoring and embroidery but accept
that being homemaker, she did the domestic work.
It is recognized by the Court that the services of
the housewife is invaluable and cannot be
computed in terms of money. In the case the Apex
Court cited following passage form the Arun
Agarwal Judgement:
“If we take these services for granted and
do not attach any value to this, this may escalate
the unforeseen costs in terms of deterioration of
both human capabilities and social fabric”.
138
Bombay High Court, in Rambau v Oriental
Insurance company Ltdxxi, held that the role of
woman as a ‘house wife (also known as ‘home
maker’) in family is the most challenging and
important role through deserves much appreciation
but least appreciated.However, the work she does
go unacknowledged and is not considered as a
‘job’. It is an impossible task to count the services
she renders which are consisting hundreds of
component that go into the functioning of a house
hold itself, in monetary terms.
In the facts of the case women was house
wife and daily labour, earn hundred rupees daily.
Her monthly income was assessed three thousand
and three thousand assessed as her notional
income as house wife. One third was deducted as
personal expenses and four thousand held as her
monthly income and forty eight thousand assessed
as annual income. As age was forty five, multiplier
of fifteen applied for the calculation of the
compensation.
Way Ahead
Thus, it can be said that Courts has taken
innovative steps to recognize work of home
makers. In every attempt the work of home maker
has been valued by applying various methods and
also considered all other factors such as women’s
decision to work at home, wages in accordance to
unskilled or skilled, educational qualification of
deceased and her age at the time of death. It is to
be argued that if the value of the homemaker’s
work can be assessed after her death, then why not
it is given to her when she is alive? Even in case
of decree of divorce, matrimonial property is
equally divided between the spouses. Some
measures has to be invented that how a house
maker can get ‘just’ pecuniary dues of house work
in her life. Equal share provided to the wife in the
matrimonial property on divorce, notional income
of wife assessed on her death, but she gets nothing
while alive and working at home and for home.
Similar approach has to develop to provide
economic value to the invaluable work of a house
maker too. Two approaches are recently
mentioned, first to give them ‘salary’, and second
is to take them as ‘worker’. Prof Kotiswaran said
“In a country like India where gender norms are so
entrenched the only way you can begin to reduce
or redistribute unpaid work is by recognizing it has
some value, and the best way sometimes to
appreciate the value of such work is to put a price
on itxxii. On the other hand, Prof Aswin Deshpande
said, in the country like India, where unequal
division of domestic chores, lack of economic
independence lowers the women position in the
household in terms of decision making and
mobility, even earning women didn’t have
controlled over her hard core earned money. In
such circumstances payment would create more
dependence for them, reduced their status and
willenhanced their burden. They would be
categorized for stereotyped domestic and care
work. Instead all these, to value the work of
women, recognize their contribution to household
enterprise as workers, on the same footing as men,
and share the earnings from the household
enterprise fairlyxxiii. It is too early to reach any
conclusion because both of these approaches has
to be examined in Indian scenario with special
reference to social and economic conditions of
women in India. But the good thing is that debate
is on and it would definitely suggest something
through which invaluable work of women has
given just value.
Conclusion
The expression of housewife turned to
homemaker, maternity altruism or labour of love
valued with pecuniary compensation, unpaid
domestic and care work equated to forced labour,
to examine future prospect it is held as skilled
work. Hence, “Nevertheless, the Supreme Court in
Kriti Singh Case has settled disputed propositions
of law, secures the foundational premise of
pecuniary compensation for homemakers and
issues a clarion call for the recognition of UNCW
in line with chaining attitudes and constitutional
values. It will enable fairer divorce settlements and
facilitate family law reform. Crucially, it adds to
debates on salaries for homemakers and feminist
praxis on wages for housework”. xxiv
References
i. Redistribute unpaid work, available at
www.unwomen.org/en/news/in-
focus/csw61/redistribute-unpaid-
work,visited on 10/5/2021
139
ii. BansariKamdar, ‘India’s Women Bears
The Burden of Unpaid Work-With Cost To
Themselves And The Economy’, The
Diplomat, Nov 2, 2020.
iii. Civil Appeal no 1920 of 202, decided on
5th Jan 2021.
iv. BansariKamdar, India’s Women left
behind, India’s falling female labor
participation. The Diplomat, July 21,
2020.avialiable at https://thediplomat.com/
v. SubodhVerma, Why Indian Women are out
of work, TOI, Sep 19, 2017
vi. 299 v 97min per day: NSS confirm
household unpaid works falls on women,
ZasheenShakh, Indian Express, 3oth Sep
2020
vii. Recommendation 17 of the Convention on
Elimination of all form Discrimination of
Women
viii. J. Ramanna, in Kriti v Oriental Insurance
Company, Case, Civil Appeal no 1920 of
202, decided on 5th Jan 2021 Para 15,
ix. Kriti Singh v Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd. Civil Appeal no 1920 of 202, decided
on 5th Jan 2021
x. Clause 6 of the Sec 163 A of the Motor
vehicles Act 1988
xi. Motor Vehicles Amendment Act 2019, has
come into force on 1st September 2019.
xii. (2010) 9 SCC 218
xiii. Mehmet v Perry, 2 ALL ER, 57
xiv. National Insurance Company v Minor
Dipika, (2009) SCC online Mad 828.
xv. Ibid, see Para 10
xvi. Para 23 and 24 of the Arun Kumar
Agarwal v National Insurance Company
Limited, (2010) 9 SCC 218
xvii. (2001) 8 SCC 197
xviii. (2020)SCConline SC 521
xix. M.A.No.1170.2008, 23 May 2017
xx. (2015) 4 SCC 237
xxi. First appeal no. 510 of 2007, decided on 17
Sep 2020.
xxii. Prof PrabhaKottiswar, ‘Salaries of house
work will compel world to see value of
women labour’, TNN 5thFeb
2021,avialiable at Should women be paid
for household work? - Times of India
(indiatimes.com)
xxiii. Prof AswinDeshpandey, Let’s Talk of
Sharing The Load Instead of Entrenching
Idea of Male Bread Winner, TNN, 5thFeb
2021, available at Should women be paid
for household work? - Times of India
(indiatimes.com)
xxiv. PrabhaKotiswar, Economic Worth of
Homemakers, EPWFeb 13, 2021, Vol LVI,
No. 7