The Right to Sit: Rethinking Workplace Conditions in India

This article is inspired by a rather disquieting observation of workplace conditions in urban establishments, brought to light by encounters with workers in Delhi. If the health of a nation’s workforce is any indicator of its progress, these accounts reveal that India’s path to progress remains fraught with significant challenges.

A security guard, employed at an institution widely regarded as one of Delhi’s premier schools and sprawling across several acres, was found seated on a piece of cloth laid over a crumbling sidewalk adjacent to the school premises at 9 p.m. on a Sunday, braving the city’s oppressive heatwave while sincerely attending to his duties.

In another part of the city, an employee at a reputed electronics retail outlet faced similarly grueling conditions. Tasked with assisting customers in porting SIM cards, the worker moved from station to station, managing a steady stream of customers without a chair in sight. “We stand all day, and there’s nowhere to sit, not even for a minute”, he lamented, describing the long hours and lack of basic accommodations.

To make matters worse, many of these workers are also afforded no proper respite during breaks, often forced to perch on stairwells, crouch in narrow corners of the store, or worse, seek refuge outdoors.

The retail industry, and indeed, all customer-facing workplaces, thrive unabashedly on the enforcement of a no-sitting policy, a practice pervasive not only in Delhi but across India.

These episodes, likely emblematic of a broader systemic issue, bring to the forefront the important question of the extent to which commercial and institutional establishments adhere to labour-friendly practices, particularly in ensuring adequate seating arrangements for its employees.

Indian framework

Our Constitution¹ outlines an ambitious vision for the well-being of its citizens, with Articles 39(e)² and 42³ emphasising the need for humane working conditions and protection against exploitation. These provisions call upon the State to ensure that the health of workers is safeguarded and that workplaces uphold standards of fairness and dignity. Yet, these lofty ideals remain largely aspirational rather than enforceable, as they fall under the non-justiciable Directive Principles of State Policy.

The Indian Constitution, though hailed by many as a beacon of progressive rights, falls short of expressly recognising the “right to sit” at workplace as either a fundamental or a constitutional right. However, Article 21⁴, enshrining the right to life, has, over the years, emerged as a vital reservoir of various ancillary rights, often stepping in to safeguard such fundamental interests. It is within this expansive interpretation of Article 21 that the protection of basic labour rights, such as access to seating at workplace, must find its legal basis, though, as of yet, it remains to be expressly declared by our constitutional courts.

Nonetheless, what has become fairly entrenched in our constitutional jurisprudence is the “right to health”, recognised as an integral component of the “right to life” under Article 21, fortified through successive rulings of the Supreme Court. In Francis Coralie Mullin v. State (NCT of Delhi)⁵, the Court held that, “any act which damages or injures or interferes with the use of, any limb or faculty of a person, either permanently or even temporarily, would be within the inhibition of Article 21”. Similarly, in Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India⁶, the Court reiterated that “the health and strength of the worker is an integral facet of right to life. Denial thereof denudes the workman the finer facets of life violating Article 21”.

The health risks associated with prolonged standing are widely acknowledged. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has also expressed concerns over the associated adverse health effects. Research indicates that immediate consequences of prolonged standing include fatigue, lower back pain, and swollen legs, while long-term risks include increased susceptibility to cardiovascular conditions and adverse pregnancy outcomes.⁷

It follows, therefore, that a no-sitting policy, or the absence of adequate seating arrangements, constitutes an infringement on employees’ fundamental right to health, thereby warranting protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

However, for a country that proclaims itself as a welfare State and owes much of its progress to the strength of its labour force, these vague, or perhaps disguised, constitutional protections offer little in terms of practical impact. Without specific regulatory measures, the “right to sit” remains largely unprotected in much of India, leaving workers vulnerable to the physical toll of policies that fail to meet even the basic needs.

The enterprising southern States of India, however, true to their progressionist ethos, have set yet another benchmark by formally recognising the “right to sit” as a workplace entitlement. Kerala led the charge in 2019, followed by Tamil Nadu in 2021, marking a significant step towards improving labour conditions in industries long defined by rigid and often dehumanising practices. The journey to this recognition, however, was far from smooth. It was shaped by the struggles of countless textile shop workers, whose basic rights were routinely impeded. In Kerala, the tipping point came after a woman employed at a textile showroom had her pay docked for leaning against a wall while the customers shopped. The incident sparked widespread outrage, fuelling a grassroots movement that ultimately pressured lawmakers to act.

The Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960⁸, was amended to incorporate Section 21-B, which mandates every “commercial establishment” and “shop” to make suitable seating arrangements for all workers, in order to prevent the workers from remaining “on their toes” throughout their shifts, enabling them to utilise opportunities to sit during their work. Notably, the Act extends its protection equally to all workers, irrespective of gender. The Act’s broad definition of “commercial establishments” includes a wide range of sectors such as banking, insurance, hospitality, retail, and entertainment, barring those covered by the Factories Act, 1948⁹. The term “shop” is similarly expansive, encompassing any premises where trade, business, or services are offered, including offices, storage spaces, and warehouses. This expansive interpretation helps extend the “right to sit” across a diverse array of industries, reflecting a significant step forward in worker protections. Employers who fail to comply with this mandate face fines of up to Rs. 1 Lakh ce, with fines doubling up to Rs. 2 Lakhs repeat violations.

The Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947¹⁰, echoes this commitment through Section 22-A, which similarly mandates adequate seating arrangements for workers. Other States, however, are yet to follow suit.

International framework

Surprisingly, or perhaps unsurprisingly given its capitalist framework, the widely acclaimed progressive USA has similarly fallen short in robustly recognising the right to sit in the workplace. In the United States, the first legal recognition came in 1881 with New York’s “right to sit” law, initially aimed at female workers. Over time, this law expanded to include all employees where the nature of the job reasonably allows for seated work. Other States, including California, Oregon, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Montana, Illinois, Connecticut, have followed suit. However, the recognition of this right is typically confined to jobs where sitting is a feasible accommodation, leaving many workers in other industries still without this basic provision. Further, the enforceability of workplace seating laws is often a contentious subject, as demonstrated by the Walmart case of 2009. In this class action lawsuit, cashiers at Walmart in California sued the company for refusing to provide seating while they worked. The case, which stretched over nearly a decade, was finally settled in 2018 with a $65 million payout. Throughout the litigation, Walmart staunchly defended its no-sitting policy, arguing that the nature of the job required cashiers to be mobile.

Walmart’s legal battle is not an isolated incident. Other major retailers like Bank of America, Home Depot, Target, 99 Cents Only Stores, and JPMorgan Chase have faced similar lawsuits in California.

Countries like Germany, Sweden, France, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Japan have recognised the “right to sit” in the workplace, but this is typically conditional on whether seating is considered reasonable and necessary for the nature of the work. However, what sets many of these nations apart is their attention to detail in defining workplace standards. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations, 1992¹¹ lay out clear guidelines for what a suitable workstation must entail. The Regulations specify that a workstation should be arranged to meet the needs of the workers and the tasks they are likely to perform. Outdoor workstations are subject to additional requirements, including protection from adverse weather, provisions for swift evacuation in emergencies, and safeguards against slipping or falling.

Conclusion

While most nations have made progress in acknowledging the importance of seating for workers, none have yet gone as far as to make it a universal requirement across all workplaces. The idea that employers should provide adequate seating, unless proven impractical, remains a step too far for most countries.

Proposals to introduce mandatory seating requirements in the workplace have been met with staunch resistance from employers globally, including in India. Our capitalist critics argue that providing seating could disrupt productivity and result in loss of revenue, revealing a narrow, profit-driven mindset that prioritises relentless productivity over basic human needs. The idea that workers would suffer a decline in efficiency if permitted to perform their tasks while seated, where practicable, or to take occasional respite during their shifts, is simply unfounded. In fact, allowing workers to rest occasionally can improve efficiency, not diminish it.

The need for more defined rights for the workers in India has never been more pressing, particularly given the country’s vast, growing workforce. States should look to their southern counterparts for guidance and enact similar reforms, ensuring that no worker, whether a security guard or a salesperson, suffers the indignity of being reduced to a mere utility. Beyond simply mandating seating arrangements, it is imperative that these measures meet the specific needs of workers, particularly those in outdoor roles. Moreover, steps must be taken to guarantee that the benefits of these laws extend to all sectors, unless their implementation is proven to be unfeasible.

In a country on the cusp of expanding its global influence, the protection of workers’ dignity and well-being must not become an afterthought. As India accelerates its economic progress, the ethical obligation to protect those who form the backbone of its labour force, remains an essential component of its developmental journey.