Kathmandu, 27 June: Maya from Kalanki, Kathmandu, who previously faced abuse while working in someone else’s home, says she doesn’t even want to recall those past incidents. After working continuously for three months, she was mistreated when she asked for her wages.
She and her daughter had been living in a small ground-floor room of a merchant’s house in Kalanki under the condition that she would clean and look after the old house. Maya worked there for five years, earning a monthly salary of NPR 11,000. But when she requested a raise of NPR 2,000, the house owner started accusing her of making mistakes at work and forced her to repeat tasks as a form of punishment.
Previously, she used to receive her salary every two or three months, but when she asked for her pay this time, she was accused of stealing kitchen utensils and was dismissed without being paid for the last three months.
Similarly, Sabitri, who worked at the home of Ramesh Kafle in Sanepa, Lalitpur, was also fired after being accused of stealing NPR 3,800. This incident took place in Bhadra 2081 (August–September 2024).
Since Sabitri was aware of her rights, she filed a complaint against her employer through a fellow member of the Nepal Domestic Workers Trade Union, which is affiliated with the General Federation of Nepalese Trade Unions (GEFONT). She shared that she had been working in the same house for seven to eight years and was accused of theft immediately after requesting a weekly day off.
According to GEFONT, during a mediation between Sabitri and her employer, Ramesh Kafle, no evidence was found to support the accusation. Under GEFONT’s supervision, Kafle was made to pay Sabitri NPR 15,550 in pending wages. In these two cases, Sabitri was able to obtain some justice because she was organized through a trade union. Maya, however, who lacked such awareness, was denied her wages entirely.
Until Nepal ratifies the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 189 (Domestic Workers Convention, C-189), informal domestic workers like Maya and Sabitri, who work inside private homes, are unlikely to receive justice for the abuse they face. Ratifying this convention would provide a legal foundation for filing complaints and taking action against all forms of workplace abuse, particularly those affecting women.
Goma Bhandari, Secretary of the Women Workers’ Forum, stated that domestic women workers should be entitled to wages, employment contracts, appointment letters, weekly leave, festival leave, and sick leave. However, due to the absence of specific laws regarding domestic workers, although a few receive weekly leave, most are deprived of other benefits.
She shared her experience, saying that the moment workers raise the issue of wage increases with their employers, many are immediately dismissed under various pretexts. According to Bhandari, even when women organized with the Forum ask for weekly leave, a festival bonus equivalent to one month’s salary after a year of work, or holiday leave, employers often find excuses to fire them — a practice that continues to make their employment highly insecure.
Prajwal Oli, Program Coordinator at Yuwalaya, an organization working to ensure the rights of domestic workers, stated that the current state of domestic labor—marked by indignity, insecurity, and exploitation—needs to be brought within a formal policy framework. He emphasized the need to establish domestic work as safe, dignified, and respected labor by ratifying ILO Convention 189 (Domestic Workers Convention, C-189) and by creating the necessary laws, regulations, and action plans for its implementation.
Federal parliamentarian Rama Koirala expressed concern that Nepal, where informal workers make up 84% of the labor force, has shown little interest in ratifying ILO Convention C-189. She stressed that without legal recognition of the rights of domestic workers in the informal sector, they remain vulnerable to labor exploitation, human trafficking, sexual abuse, wage discrimination, insecure employment without contracts, and exclusion from social protection. She emphasized the urgent need to end these conditions.
Trade unions have concluded that Nepal’s continued failure to ratify this convention clearly signals a weak commitment to labor rights.
They have long been demanding that domestic workers be registered at the municipal level to determine their actual numbers and ensure provisions such as employment contracts, appointment letters, minimum wages, and inclusion in the Social Security Fund. According to trade unions, it is estimated that there are over 200,000 domestic workers in Nepal, although there is no official data available.
According to the International Labour Organization (ILO), more than 200,000 domestic workers are employed in Nepal, and 80 percent of them are women. In 2011, the ILO adopted Convention C-189 with the aim of granting official recognition to domestic workers as workers worldwide. To date, only 37 countries have ratified the convention, and in Asia, the Philippines is the only country to have done so.
Janak Chaudhary, Senior Vice President of GEFONT, stated that due to the lack of registration of domestic workers, those in the sector are being deprived of even their most basic rights. According to him, although the Labor Act 2074 (2017) does not clearly mention domestic labor, it does require each municipality to register domestic workers, determine their number, and develop separate regulations based on that data for implementation. However, so far, only Budhanilkantha Municipality has initiated the registration process; no other local bodies have done so.
Minister for Labor, Employment, and Social Security, Sharatsingh Bhandari, noted that since the Labor Act is currently under amendment, there is an opportunity to clearly address issues concerning domestic workers in the revised law. He has called for suggestions on what provisions should be included. He emphasized that because domestic workers have long been subjected to various forms of exploitation due to their exclusion from the Act, the amended law must incorporate their minimum basic rights.
Writer: Sita Sharma
