Introduction
Death is treated in every society as an event requiring dignity, ritual and care, yet the workers who make this dignity possible remain almost invisible in law and policy. Cemetery and burial workers dig graves, carry and handle bodies, prepare burial grounds and complete the last rites that families are often too grieved to perform themselves. Their labour is physically demanding, emotionally taxing and, in many cases, biologically hazardous. Despite this, they rarely appear in discussions on occupational safety, and their working conditions are seldom examined by policymakers.
India’s Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which the judiciary has interpreted to include the right to live with dignity and to work in humane conditions.1 The Directive Principles of State Policy further direct the State to ensure that the health and strength of workers are not abused and that working conditions remain humane.2 The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that these guarantees extend to unorganised and informal workers, not merely to those in recognised industrial employment.3 Cemetery and burial workers therefore fall squarely within the constitutional promise of dignified labour, even though their occupation is rarely named in ordinary legislative drafting.
This paper examines the everyday working conditions of cemetery and burial workers in India, the extent to which existing labour legislation applies to them, and the practical barriers that prevent that legislation from reaching them. It draws on field interaction with workers at two cemeteries in Chennai, alongside a review of the statutory and constitutional framework governing occupational safety, social security and welfare. The purpose is not merely descriptive; the paper seeks to identify concrete, implementable reforms that can close the gap between the protection promised on paper and the protection experienced in practice. The sections that follow set out the research gap, the methodology adopted, the specific vulnerabilities of this workforce, the applicable legal framework, the findings from the field, and a set of policy recommendations aimed at making existing protections meaningful for this largely forgotten category of essential workers.
Research gap
Existing academic and policy literature on Indian labour law has examined the unorganised sector extensively, particularly domestic work, construction, agriculture and street vending.4 Reports on conditions of work in the unorganised sector have documented low wages, absence of social security and weak enforcement across a wide range of informal occupations.5 International bodies have likewise studied occupational safety gaps affecting informal workers more broadly, recommending that protective measures, including low-cost preventive ones, reach these workers without waiting for their formalisation.6
However, cemetery and burial workers rarely feature as a distinct category within this literature. Where they appear at all, it is usually in journalistic accounts written during moments of crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, rather than in sustained legal or policy analysis. This creates a gap in two respects. First, there is limited empirical documentation of the actual working conditions, wages, safety practices and social treatment of cemetery workers in India, particularly across different religious and community-managed burial grounds. Second, there is no focused legal analysis of whether the existing framework of occupational safety and social-security legislation is capable of reaching this workforce, given the informality, religious variation and dispersed institutional control that characterise burial-ground management.
This study attempts to address both gaps. It combines field-level data collection with a doctrinal review of the relevant statutes, so as to connect the lived experience of workers with the specific legal provisions that are meant to protect them. In doing so, it treats cemetery and burial workers not as a marginal curiosity but as an instructive case study of a wider problem in Indian labour law: the persistence of a gap between statutory entitlement and practical implementation for workers who are informally engaged, dispersed across small and often religiously governed establishments, and largely unrepresented in collective bargaining structures.
Methodology
A. Study design
This study was designed to understand the actual working conditions of cemetery workers and the difficulties they face in daily work, and to examine why some workers continue to face problems despite the existence of labour laws and welfare measures. Unlike organised workplaces, where workers may have unions or representatives, cemetery workers are less visible and their problems are rarely discussed. The study therefore focuses on this group precisely because their work (digging graves, handling bodies and preparing burial sites) is essential yet socially overlooked. Field visits were conducted at St Patrick’s Cemetery and Pattinampakkam Cemetery, where workers were asked directly about their working conditions, income, safety practices, health, job security, social-security benefits and social treatment. The study also compared the two sites: St Patrick’s Cemetery offered a more regular arrangement with accommodation and a monthly salary, while Pattinampakkam workers were engaged on a per-burial basis. Interaction with the parish priest and the caretaker supplemented the workers’ accounts by clarifying the management and employment arrangement. The central concern throughout was the gap between the protection expected under labour law and the protection actually experienced by these workers.
B. Conceptual framework
The study rests on the premise that every worker is entitled to a safe and fair working environment, and that the existence of a law does not, by itself, guarantee that a worker receives its benefit. The framework examines six areas: wages and livelihood, occupational safety, health, social security, job security, and social recognition and dignity. It also considers collective representation, since the cemetery workers interviewed lacked any effective platform to raise concerns collectively and instead communicated individually with the person managing the cemetery. A further dimension is the distinction between the essential nature of the work and the recognition it receives, a gap made starkly visible during the COVID-19 pandemic, when cemetery workers continued handling and burying bodies even as public fear of infection was at its peak.
C. Data collection
Primary information was gathered through direct field visits and informal, personal interaction with workers at both cemeteries, rather than by relying solely on secondary literature. Workers were informed of the academic purpose of the interaction, and their consent was obtained before their accounts were used. Interviews were conducted informally, over shared conversation, to allow workers to describe sensitive and personal experiences comfortably. Questions covered years of experience, salary and supplementary income, actual duties performed, availability of protective equipment, illness and medical response, awareness of social-security benefits, job security, and treatment by the wider community. Supplementary information was obtained from the parish priest and the caretaker regarding the employment and management arrangement.
D. Data analysis
Responses were grouped under six recurring themes: economic condition, working conditions and safety, health, social security, job security, and social stigma and isolation. Worker accounts were read alongside the information provided by cemetery management to identify the extent of any divergence between the two. The analysis then examined these findings against the stated purpose of labour and social-security legislation, to assess whether the workers are, in practice, receiving the protection that such legislation is designed to secure.
Vulnerability of cemetery and burial workers in India
Cemetery and burial workers perform an essential service, yet the risks involved in their work are rarely discussed within occupational-safety literature. Their duties (digging and preparing graves, lifting and carrying bodies, filling graves and maintaining burial grounds) vary considerably depending on local custom, religious practice and the manner in which a particular ground is managed, so this workforce cannot be treated as a single uniform category.
The physical nature of the work creates direct risk. Grave digging requires repeated bending, lifting and prolonged manual excavation, often with basic hand tools and without protective equipment. Unstable or waterlogged soil can cause falls or collapse, and outdoor work during extreme heat places additional strain on workers, risks that intensify where there is no safety training and no system for reporting accidents.7
Beyond physical injury, workers face biological and environmental hazards through contact with human remains, bodily fluids and contaminated soil. Where gloves, masks, protective footwear and suitable clothing are unavailable, the likelihood of occupational exposure rises, a concern documented globally wherever informal workers operate outside conventional occupational-safety systems.8 Poor sanitation compounds this risk: many burial grounds lack reliable access to clean water, toilets or washing facilities.
A further layer of vulnerability arises from the nature of engagement itself. Cemetery and burial workers may be engaged by municipal authorities, religious institutions, charitable bodies, contractors or informal community arrangements, and it is not always easy to identify the actual employer. This uncertainty affects who is responsible for protective equipment, training, medical assistance and compensation, and workers engaged informally may hesitate to complain about unsafe conditions for fear of losing their livelihood.9
The COVID-19 pandemic exposed this vulnerability starkly. Gravediggers in Indian cities continued burying the dead through the pandemic, in some cases buying their own masks and gloves, and received comparatively little public recognition or institutional support even as healthcare workers were widely celebrated.10 This experience illustrates that the problem cannot be reduced to a shortage of equipment alone; awareness of rights, clear identification of the responsible institution and effective enforcement are equally necessary if legal protection is to have any practical value for this workforce.
Labour legislation and legal framework
India has a substantial body of constitutional and legislative provision dealing with workplace safety, welfare and social security. For cemetery and burial workers, however, the existence of legislation is only one part of the issue; the more difficult question is whether such workers actually receive the protection the law provides, given informal employment and uncertainty about who the employer is.
A. Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020
This Code, in force since 21 November 2025, consolidates thirteen earlier labour statutes and places duties on employers regarding health, safety and welfare.11 Cemetery work is not separately identified as a distinct occupation under the Code, but this does not by itself place all cemetery workers outside its protection; applicability depends on the nature of the establishment and the manner of engagement. The difficulty intensifies where workers operate in small, informal groups and no clearly identifiable employer or establishment exists to bear statutory duties.
B. Protection of unorganised workers
A considerable proportion of cemetery workers fall within the broader category of unorganised workers, whose social security was first addressed through the Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act, 2008, and is now governed by the Code on Social Security, 2020, which repealed the 2008 Act with effect from 21 November 2025.12,13 Registration under a welfare scheme, however, does not by itself resolve workplace-safety concerns; a worker may be formally registered and yet continue to work without protective equipment, training or health monitoring. Social security and occupational safety therefore remain distinct, complementary needs.
C. Building and Other Construction Workers legislation
The Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 governed the employment and welfare of construction workers until its repeal by the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020, which carries forward its definition of “building or other construction work” in substantially the same terms. Questions can arise as to whether activities connected with cemetery infrastructure, such as the construction of tombs or boundary walls, fall within that statutory definition.14 Ordinary grave digging, however, should not automatically be treated as construction work merely because excavation is involved; the statutory definition must be applied on its own terms.
D. Employees’ State Insurance and medical protection
Where cemetery workers are employed by a covered establishment and the statutory conditions are satisfied, the Employees’ State Insurance scheme, now governed by Chapter IV of the Code on Social Security, 2020, may provide medical and other benefits.15 The practical difficulty is greater for casually or informally engaged workers, who may not be registered, whose employer may not comply with statutory obligations, or who may simply be unaware that such benefits exist. Registration through the national e-Shram database offers one route by which unorganised workers, including those engaged in burial-ground work, can be formally identified for welfare purposes.16 Where a workplace injury occurs outside the ESI framework, the employer’s liability to pay compensation, formerly governed by the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 and now by Chapter VII of the Code on Social Security, 2020, remains a further avenue of statutory redress.17
E. Role of local authorities and other institutions
Burial grounds may be managed by municipal authorities, religious institutions, trusts or other local organisations, and responsibility for workplace safety necessarily varies with the nature of the managing institution. The position becomes less clear where work is outsourced to contractors, and outsourcing should not be permitted to leave the worker without effective protection. The Constitution’s directive that the State secure a living wage and humane conditions of work for all workers applies with equal force to this dispersed and informally managed workforce.18,19
F. The gap between law and implementation
The framework above shows that the central problem is not the complete absence of law. Depending on the employment relationship and the nature of the establishment, different legal protections may already be available. The more serious issue is the gap between those protections and their actual implementation: workers may remain unidentified, their employer unclear and their knowledge of statutory rights limited, while inspection authorities give correspondingly little attention to this relatively invisible workforce.
Results and discussion
The field study offered direct insight into the working lives of cemetery workers and confirmed that their difficulties are not confined to a single problem. They are connected with income, safety, health, job security, social-security benefits and the way society treats them, and the central finding was that these workers perform an essential service while remaining largely unnoticed.
Salary emerged as an immediate concern. Workers at St Patrick’s Cemetery reported earning approximately ₹11,000 per month, along with accommodation and basic facilities, yet described this as insufficient for family needs, prompting supplementary work such as making crosses and other cement-related tasks. At Pattinampakkam Cemetery, workers were engaged only when a burial occurred and were paid per task, leaving their income dependent on the frequency of deaths rather than assured through a regular wage. Both arrangements, though structured differently, left workers financially insecure.
A second major finding was the absence of adequate protective equipment. Workers explained that they lack sufficient masks and other protective materials despite directly handling bodies, and that they were often unable to identify whether subsequent illness was work-related, generally treating symptoms only after they appeared rather than through preventive monitoring. This gap became acute during the COVID-19 pandemic, when gravediggers in cities such as Mumbai worked round-the-clock shifts to keep pace with rising deaths, at times without protective gear.20 During the second wave, a Delhi graveyard was receiving a new body minutes after the last, and crematoriums in four Gujarat cities were operating around the clock as the dead piled up.21 Campaigners said that few appreciated the workers who staffed them, one describing such workers as having “no recognition despite their work in the pandemic”, even as public attention focused on frontline medical staff, and in Delhi the shortfall in institutional support was met not by government provision but by ad hoc public crowdfunding, which began with food parcels and led to further appeals for sanitisers and drinking water.22
Workers also raised concerns about the absence of provident fund contributions and uncertainty over what would happen if they became seriously ill or unable to work, a concern sharpened by the fact that many depend on this occupation as their sole livelihood, with no clear assurance that their position would be protected during illness. The absence of a collective grievance mechanism compounded this insecurity: workers dealt individually with the priest or caretaker responsible for the cemetery, without access to a wider platform through which systemic problems could be raised.
Perhaps the most striking finding concerned social stigma. Workers described being excluded from weddings and other celebratory occasions because of a belief that association with cemetery work invites misfortune. One worker recounted being blamed by a grieving family for an unrelated death that occurred shortly after he visited their home, an experience that led him to withdraw from social functions for an extended period. This shows that the difficulties facing cemetery workers extend beyond wages and safety into dignity and social relationships, reinforcing an isolation that workers largely bear alone.
Taken together, these findings show that the central issue is not simply whether cemetery workers have employment, but whether that employment provides adequate protection. A worker may receive a salary and accommodation while still lacking protective equipment, social security, medical monitoring and job security, confirming that the gap between statutory entitlement and lived experience remains the defining feature of this occupation.
Policy recommendations
The difficulties identified above do not necessarily require a wholly separate labour statute for cemetery workers. A more practical solution lies in improving the implementation of existing safety and social-security protections and clearly assigning responsibility for their enforcement.
A. Identification and registration
The first step is to identify workers engaged in cemetery and burial-related activity. Local authorities, cemetery management bodies, religious institutions and other organisations responsible for burial grounds should maintain basic records of the workers they engage, making it easier to determine employment status and applicable benefits.
B. Access to social security
Workers falling within the unorganised category should receive active assistance in accessing social-security schemes, including registration under the e-Shram system, which was created precisely to bring informally engaged workers within a national welfare database.23 Registration and awareness drives conducted directly at burial grounds would reduce dependence on workers’ own knowledge of administrative procedure.
C. Personal protective equipment
Protective equipment should be treated as a basic requirement of cemetery work: gloves, masks, protective footwear, suitable clothing and appropriate tools, selected according to the specific risks of each burial ground. Responsibility for providing this equipment should rest clearly with the employer, contractor or institution controlling the workplace, leaving no room for ambiguity.
D. Regular health examination and medical assistance
Workers should have access to periodic health examinations, particularly given repeated physical exertion and exposure to human remains and contaminated materials, alongside a clear procedure for obtaining immediate medical treatment after an accident. Workers should also be informed of the compensation and benefits available to them following workplace injury, consistent with the underlying purpose of statutory compensation schemes.24
E. Safety training and awareness
Protective equipment alone cannot eliminate workplace accidents. Workers should receive practical training, delivered in a language they understand, on safe excavation, tool handling, use of protective equipment, sanitation and emergency response, an approach consistent with international guidance favouring low-cost, participatory safety interventions for informal workers.25
F. Clear responsibility of employers and authorities
Where cemetery work is carried out through contractors or informal arrangements, the institution exercising control over the workplace should bear clearly defined safety responsibility, with contractors independently accountable for duties within their role, so that responsibility cannot simply be passed between parties whenever an accident occurs.
G. Inspection and grievance mechanism
Eligible cemetery workplaces should be brought within routine inspection and monitoring activity, and workers should have access to a simple mechanism for reporting unsafe conditions, accidents or denial of statutory benefits. A designated local or district officer could provide a clear point of contact for workers otherwise unsure where to complain.
H. Safety measures and local practices
Because cemetery and burial work differs across religious and local contexts, safety measures should reflect the actual risks at each workplace, developed in consultation with workers, local authorities, religious institutions and community representatives rather than imposed through a single uniform template.
Conclusion
Cemetery and burial workers perform an essential service, yet their occupational risks remain largely outside the mainstream discussion on workplace safety. Their work involves physical strain, biological exposure, environmental hazard and inadequate access to basic safety facilities, difficulties that the informal nature of their employment only compounds.
This study indicates that the underlying problem should not be described simply as an absence of labour legislation. India has a legal framework addressing occupational safety, welfare, medical protection and social security. The extent to which these protections actually reach cemetery and burial workers depends instead on employment status, the nature of the establishment, clear identification of the employer and the effectiveness of enforcement, precisely the elements that field interaction with workers showed to be weakest in practice.
The gap between law and practice is therefore the central concern of this paper. A worker may technically hold a legal right without knowing about it, without knowing whom to approach, or while remaining reluctant to complain because of insecure employment.26 Lack of protective equipment, safety training, health support and regular monitoring further weakens whatever protection exists on paper.
The study also shows why a uniform approach is unsuitable for all cemetery-related workers, since burial and cremation grounds operate according to different religious and local practices, with correspondingly different risks. The immediate need is to strengthen the implementation of existing protections (identification and registration of workers, access to social-security schemes, provision of protective equipment, regular health examination, safety training and an accessible grievance mechanism) while clearly establishing the responsibilities of local authorities, employers, contractors and institutions managing burial grounds.
Ultimately, the situation of cemetery and burial workers illustrates a broader concern within Indian labour law: legal protection is meaningful only when it can be used in practice. Greater recognition of this workforce, clearer awareness of rights, effective supervision and defined accountability can narrow the gap between statutory protection and actual working conditions, ensuring that workers who perform an essential and difficult service are treated with the dignity and protection to which they are entitled.
*****
Footnotes
1. India Const. art. 21.
2. India Const. arts. 39(e), 42.
3. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161 (India) (bonded labourers in stone quarries); see also People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, (1982) 3 SCC 235 (India) (workers engaged through contractors on the Asian Games construction projects).
4. See generally National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector, Report on Conditions of Work and Promotion of Livelihoods in the Unorganised Sector (2007), https://dcmsme.gov.in/Condition_of_workers_sep_2007.pdf.
5. National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector, supra note 4, at i, 166.
6. Valentina Forastieri, International Labour Organization, Occupational Safety and Health in the Informal Economy (2014), https://www.ilo.org/publications/occupational-safety-and-health-informal-economy (last visited Sept. 1, 2026) (low-cost preventive measures; occupational safety and health measures “should not wait for their formalization”).
7. See International Labour Organization, Extending Occupational Safety and Health to the Informal Economy: Article for the XVIII World Congress on Safety and Health at Work (June 17, 2008) (interview with Tsuyoshi Kawakami), https://www.ilo.org/resource/article/extending-occupational-safety-and-health-informal-economy-article-xviii (last visited Sept. 1, 2026) (informal workers are exposed to “various hazards in the workplace without having appropriate safety and health training and information”).
8. Institution of Occupational Safety and Health, Work, Risk and the Informal Economy, https://iosh.com/about/what-we-do/white-papers/informal-economy (last visited Sept. 1, 2026) (scoping review by RAND Europe: “Protective equipment is often absent” and informal workers “remain almost entirely outside formal worker health and safety legislation”).
9. See, e.g., Nishita Jha, The Coronavirus in India: The Gravedigger at New Delhi’s Only COVID-19 Burial Ground Is Afraid, BuzzFeed News (Apr. 20, 2020), https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nishitajha/coronavirus-india-covid-19-burials (gravedigger at Jadeed Qabristan buying masks, gloves and sanitizer “with his own money” and saying “The government should provide us with these things”).
10. COVID-19 Dead Give New Delhi Gravedigger Sleepless Nights, Gulf News (May 19, 2020), https://gulfnews.com/photos/news/covid-19-dead-give-new-delhi-gravedigger-sleepless-nights-1.1589868603713 (AFP photo report); see also Jha, supra note 9.
11. The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, No. 37 of 2020, India Code (2020), § 143(1) (repealing thirteen enactments); Ministry of Labour and Employment, Notification S.O. 5321(E) (Nov. 21, 2025) (appointing Nov. 21, 2025 as the date on which the Code comes into force).
12. The Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act, No. 33 of 2008, India Code (2008).
13. The Code on Social Security, No. 36 of 2020, India Code (2020), ch. IX, § 164(1) (item 9, repealing the Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act, 2008); Ministry of Labour and Employment, Notification S.O. 5319(E) (Nov. 21, 2025) (bringing, among other provisions, §§ 17–141 and § 164(1), items 1, 2 and 4–9, into force on Nov. 21, 2025).
14. The Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, No. 27 of 1996, India Code (1996), § 2(1)(d); see now Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, supra note 11, §§ 2(1)(h), 143(1)(m).
15. Code on Social Security, supra note 13, § 32 (benefits formerly provided under § 46 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, No. 34 of 1948, which § 164(1) of the Code repeals).
16. Ministry of Labour and Employment, e-Shram: National Database of Unorganised Workers (launched Aug. 26, 2021); see also Code on Social Security, supra note 13, § 113 (registration of unorganised workers).
17. Code on Social Security, supra note 13, § 74 (employer’s liability for compensation, in Chapter VII, which replaces the Employees’ Compensation Act, No. 8 of 1923, repealed by § 164(1) of the Code).
18. India Const. art. 42.
19. India Const. art. 43.
20. Mumbai Gravediggers Work 24/7 Shifts as India’s COVID Deaths Soar, Al Jazeera (Apr. 29, 2021), https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/29/mumbai-gravediggers-work-24-7-shifts-as-indias-covid-deaths (Reuters report; a Mumbai gravedigger working “around the clock” had stopped wearing personal protective equipment and gloves early in the crisis).
21. India’s Crematoriums Buckle as COVID-19 Dead Pile Up, Inquirer News (Apr. 20, 2021), https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1421518/indias-crematoriums-buckle-as-covid-19-dead-pile-up (AFP report; at a New Delhi graveyard another body arrived “just minutes after the last”; crematoriums in Surat, Rajkot, Jamnagar and Ahmedabad “operating around the clock”).
22. India Crowd-Funds Millions for Its Weary Crematorium Workers, Inquirer News (May 7, 2021), https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1428409/india-crowd-funds-millions-for-its-weary-crematorium-workers (Thomson Reuters Foundation report).
23. Ministry of Labour and Employment, supra note 16.
24. See Code on Social Security, supra note 13, § 74.
25. International Labour Organization, Ensuring Occupational Safety and Health in the Unorganized Sector Is the Biggest Challenge for a Country like India (Apr. 27, 2018) (interview with Avneesh Singh, Director General, Directorate General Factory Advice Service and Labour Institutes), https://www.ilo.org/resource/news/ensuring-occupational-safety-and-health-unorganized-sector-biggest (last visited Sept. 1, 2026); see also Forastieri, supra note 6 (ILO’s “innovative, participatory and action oriented measures” and “low cost solutions to improve working conditions” for informal workers).
26. Cf. Mumbai Gravediggers Work 24/7 Shifts, supra note 20 (“The government is not going to give us anything.”); India Crowd-Funds Millions, supra note 22 (crematorium workers have “no job security or social security”).